Source: https://www.cuhlaw.com/guns.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:47:06+00:00

Document:
The Armed Citizens Network recently sent some general questions to panel legal counsel pertaining to their respective states. I thought I would share my response. First, the questions.
In the state/states in which you practice law, what latitude is granted the armed citizen defending against attack inside his/her own home? Can the citizen use defensive deadly force inside their home without retreating? Against an intruder who is not actively attacking (perhaps has broken in but is not compliant when the homeowner orders them to leave)? How about shooting without issuing a warning (maybe the intruder is about to enter a child's room)?
Can the citizen successfully make the claim that an attached garage was part of their domicile if they use deadly force against an intruder there? What about out buildings or unattached garages or on properties like the lawn or back yard? Where is the line drawn?
Ohio has a recent castle doctrine law, but had relatively good case law even before the castle doctrine statute. Under the case law, a castle doctrine even applied at one's place of employment. There was no duty to retreat, but the burden of proving self defense was on the victim who killed his or her attacker.
Under the current castle doctrine statute, the armed citizen in his or her own home is presumed to be acting in self defense when shooting someone who has no right to be there, i.e., "if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force." The shooting must still be in self defense. The shooter must still be in reasonable fear of great bodily harm for self or another in the residence, or the shooting will not be justifiable. The presumption of self defense may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. A warning before shooting is not required, but the lack of a warning is a fact, taken with all other facts that may bear on whether there was a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.
It is not clear in Ohio whether an attached garage is included in the residence for castle doctrine purposes. An unattached garage is probably not. Here is the definition of dwelling to which the castle doctrine statute applies: "(2) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it and that is designed to be occupied by people lodging in the building or conveyance at night, regardless of whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or is mobile or immobile. As used in this division, a building or conveyance includes, but is not limited to, an attached porch, and a building or conveyance with a roof over it includes, but is not limited to, a tent."
Note that the definition of dwelling "includes but is not limited to, an attached porch...." An attached garage would not seem much different from an attached porch. Specific cases will have to decide that later. There is a duty to retreat when attacked on one's own driveway outside the home. Cleveland v. Hill, 63 Ohio App.3d 194, 578 N.E.2d 509 (Ohio App. 8 Dist., 1989). I found no Ohio case addressing the duty to retreat from an unattached garage.
Even if the statutory castle presumption does not apply, Ohio's common law castle doctrine decisions would apply. There is no duty to retreat from one's own business, for example, but the burden of proving self defense would be different. Grahm v. State Of Ohio, 98 Ohio St. 77, 120 N.E. 232 (1918). There is no duty to retreat when attacked on a campsite, State v. Marsh, 71 Ohio App.3d 64, 593 N.E.2d 35 (Ohio App. 11 Dist., 1990) . However, there is a duty to retreat when attacked on one's own driveway outside the home. Cleveland v. Hill, 63 Ohio App.3d 194, 578 N.E.2d 509 (Ohio App. 8 Dist., 1989). I found no Ohio case addressing the duty to retreat from an unattached garage.
... a person is relieved of the duty where there is no reasonable or safe means to avoid the confrontation. State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 250, 551 N.E.2d 1279, 1282. Accordingly, the use of deadly force is justified and the failure to retreat is of no consequence where retreat would increase the actor's own danger of death or great bodily harm.
State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 673 N.E.2d 1339 (Ohio, 1997)(Cook, dissenting).
With the recent United States Supreme court decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), a section on gun rights and gun control laws seems timely.
(3) The Ohio military reserve.
(B) The Ohio national guard, including both the Ohio air national guard and the Ohio army national guard, the Ohio naval militia, and the Ohio military reserve are known collectively as the Ohio organized militia.
(C) The Ohio naval militia and the Ohio military reserve are known collectively as the state defense forces.
(D) The unorganized militia consists of those citizens of the state as described in division (A) of this section who are not members of the Ohio organized militia.
Carroll, Ucker & Hemmer LLC represents small and large businesses in the Columbus, Worthington and all over Ohio. The firm does not handle criminal representation.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.