Opinion ID: 2719703
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fault Instruction1

Text: Petitioner argues that “[b]ecause of the complex back-and-forth of the fight, trial counsel should have requested that the court clearly explain to the jury that the first element of commonlaw self-defense does not require a showing that the defendant played “no part” in creating the situation, but rather that it required a defendant to show that he was not “at fault” in creating the affray, citing State v. Gillespie, 874 N.E.2d 870, 874 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (“The first prong of the test for self-defense . . . that a defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray, does not require a showing that he played no part in it.”) 2. Petitioner argues that trial counsel’s failure to request this instruction was compounded by the State’s closing argument, which focused on who was at fault in starting the affray and claimed that Petitioner started the whole fight by rapping something disrespectful to Cody. Petitioner acknowledges that defense counsel’s closing argument stated that Petitioner did not create the incident that led to the death of Dustin Lennex, but claims that counsel failed to tell the jury that even if he played a part in creating the situation, that fact alone did not preclude the jury from finding that he still met his burden of proof for meeting the first element of the common-law self-defense doctrine. Petitioner adds that the situation was exacerbated by the trial court’s jury instruction that in order to find that Petitioner had reasonable grounds to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, the jury could consider only Dustin Lennex’s conduct. Thus, the jurors 1 It does not appear that the Ohio Court of Appeals addressed this issue in its opinion. However, the Warden raises no objection and notes in its brief that this issue was presented in Comer’s Petition, R.2 ID# 18. 13 could have believed that they could consider only Dustin Lennex’s conduct when determining who was at fault in creating the situation. Because there is factual support in the record for the state appellate court’s conclusion that that Petitioner fired the first shot after he retreated to his home and “created the deadly situation, or at least seriously escalated it,” such that he was not entitled to a self-defense or “Castle Doctrine” instruction, the state appellate court’s holding that counsel’s failure to request a no-fault instruction did not amount to prejudice under Strickland is not objectively unreasonable.