Court Opinion

ID: 9367489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 21:07:37.692636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.573743
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Asp, 2023-Ohio-290.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                    GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                      JUDGES:
                                                   Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                         Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                                   Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
                                                   Case No. 22 CA 11
JAMES C. ASP

        Defendant-Appellant                        OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                        Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                Pleas, Case No. 20 CR 131

JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         January 31, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                          For Defendant-Appellant

LINDSEY K. ANGLER                               GEORGE URBAN
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                            116 Cleveland Avenue, NW
JASON R. FARLEY                                 Suite 808
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR                            Canton, Ohio 44702
409 Wheeling Avenue
Cambridge, Ohio 43725
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                        2

Wise, J.

        {¶1}    Defendant-Appellant James C. Asp appeals his conviction and sentence on

one count of Assault, entered in the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas following

a jury trial.

        {¶2}    Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

                             STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

        {¶3}    For purposes of the appeal, the relevant facts and procedural history are as

follows:

        {¶4}    In the morning hours of June 9, 2020, Sergeant Robbie Oakley of the

Guernsey County Sheriff’s Department was dispatched to the residence of Appellant

James Asp’s mother and stepfather. (T. at 332). Appellant's wife was also there at the

time. They reported to Sergeant Oakley that Appellant had been making threats and had

spun gravel at them as he left the residence. (T. at 333-335).

        {¶5}    A second call was received by the Sheriff’s Department later that evening

on a report of a verbal altercation at Appellant’s residence. Deputies Stoney and Terrell

arrived at the residence where they were met outside by Appellant’s wife. (T. at 365-370).

She climbed through a window, unlocked the door, and let the deputies inside. (T. at 370).

Based on the earlier incident, in conjunction with the second call, it was immediately

determined that Appellant be placed under arrest. Deputy Stoney ordered Appellant to

turn around, but Appellant refused to follow commands and a scuffle between the

deputies and Appellant ensued. (T. at 372).
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                          3

       {¶6}   Dep. Stoney testified that Appellant bit him during the altercation. (T. at 437-

439) Dep. Stoney testified that he was bit in the right arm, chest and armpit area. (T. at

465). Dep. Stoney also testified that he was cut on his forearm. (T. at 439).

       {¶7}   On June 18, 2020, the Guernsey County Grand Jury returned an indictment

against Appellant James Asp charging him with one count of Assault, in violation of R.C.

§2903.13, a felony of the fourth degree.

       {¶8}   On June 26, 2020, a plea of not guilty was entered.

       {¶9}   On October 29, 2020, the trial court ordered that Appellant be evaluated to

determine his competency to stand trial.

       {¶10} On December 17, 2020, after the parties stipulated to the report on

competency of Dr. Adkins, the trial court found Appellant was not competent to stand trial,

but could be restorable within the time allowed by law.

       {¶11} On April 30, 2021, the trial court entered a finding that, pursuant to Dr. Scott,

Appellant was restored to competency and the matter would proceed to trial.

       {¶12} On June 21, 2021, Appellant's trial counsel filed a Motion to Suppress,

which was opposed by Motion filed by the State on June 22, 2021.

       {¶13} On July 6, 2022, the trial court denied Appellant's Motion to Suppress.

Shortly thereafter, counsel for Appellant withdrew, and Appellant proceeded to engage in

self-representation with standby counsel.

       {¶14} On March 15, 2022, a jury trial commenced in this matter.

       {¶15} At trial, the jury heard testimony on behalf of the state of Ohio from Ashley

Harper, Major Jeremy Wilkinson, Sgt. Robbie Oakley, Deputy Matt Terrell and Deputy

Chancellor Stoney.
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                      4

       {¶16} Ashley Harper, a licensed social worker and crisis screener employed by

Allwell Behavioral Services and Genesis Healthcare, testified that she performed a crisis

screen of Appellant when he was at the jail. She recalled that Appellant was edgy and

anxious and “seemed angry and kind of mad at the world.” (T. at 218). She testified that

Appellant told her that he was in jail “because of a domestic violence, but that the cops

entered his home without a warrant.” (T. at 219). He told her that he “fought them and

was biting at them.” Id.

       {¶17} Major Jeremy Wilkinson testified that he responded to the domestic violence

call at Appellant’s house after hearing it come over the radio because he had known

Appellant for over 40 years and thought he could talk to him. (T. at 286). He stated that

no one was at the residence when he arrived. (T. at 287-288).

       {¶18} He further explained to the jury that a warrant is not required to arrest an

individual when active charges exist, which in this case were domestic violence charges.

(T. at 288, 296). The officers only need to have probable cause. (T. at 296). He explained

that in domestic violence cases such as these, where the both the victim and suspect are

in the home,

               you want to bring the suspect under control as quickly as you can. If

       they start backing up from you, many case studies show they may be

       backing up to get a weapon because it is their house, they know where

       everything is in that house.

               You’re just coming in, you don’t know if there’s a shotgun behind the

       door if there’s a knife on the counter, so you want to subdue them and bring

       them under control as quickly as you can.” (T. at 294).
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                           5

       {¶19} Major Wilkinson also testified that he reviewed the body-camera footage

from both Deputy Terrell and Deputy Stoney and that it was his opinion that “there was

no violation of the use of force during the course of that arrest.” (T. at 291). He stated that

his only critique of the situation was that he “would have used my taser a lot sooner”

because Appellant had his hands raised in an offensive position. (T. at 294-295).

       {¶20} Deputy Robbie Oakley testified that he responded to the domestic

disturbance call at the home of Appellant’s parents on June 9, 2020. (T. at 330-332).

After speaking with Appellant’s parents and his wife, who was also present, he

determined there was probable cause for a charge of domestic violence against Appellant

based on their statements concerning Appellant’s erratic behavior and spinning his tires

and throwing gravel at them when he left. (T. at 332, 334). He stated that it was not

reported that any physical violence had occurred but that the charge was based on the

report of threats. (T. at 335-336). He testified that he notified all officers on duty, as well

as other agencies, that there were active charges against Appellant. (T. at 336).

       {¶21} Deputy Matt Terrell testified that he was dispatched to Appellant’s home at

approximately 9:00 pm on June 9, 2020, for a call regarding a male yelling at a woman.

(T. at 366). He stated that at that time he was already aware of the domestic violence

charges out for Appellant. Id. He recalled that he and Deputy Stoner both responded to

the call and arrived at the scene in separate police cruisers. (T. at 367). He testified that

Appellant’s wife met them outside and that she climbed in through a window and then

unlocked a door and let the deputies in to the house. (T. at 369-370). He stated that

Deputy Stoney entered first and advised him that “he was going to be hands on”, meaning

“he’ll take him into custody, hands on.” (T. at 371). He further explained that Deputy
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                          6

Stoney was telling him that he would be the one to arrest Appellant. Id. He explained that

when Dep. Stoney entered the living room and approached Appellant to take him into

custody, a fight ensued. (T. at 371-372). Deputy Terrell testified that he advised Appellant

that he had warrants for his arrest and that Deputy Stoney advised him multiple times to

put his hands behind his back, but that Appellant failed to comply. (T. at 372-376). He

testified that as Appellant was backing away from Dep. Stoney and into the kitchen from

the living room, “[h]ands start flailing, and Deputy Stoney gets backed up in to the counter

space and starts yelling he’s biting me, he’s fucking biting me.” (T. at 376). He stated that

he also saw Appellant’s “face in Deputy Stoney’s chest, shoulder, bicep area”. (T. at 376-

377). Dep. Terrell then grabbed Appellant to try to lift him off of Dep. Stoney, but was

unsuccessful and ended up on the ground with the two men. (T. at 377). Appellant

continued to resist and Dep. Terrell advised Dep. Stoney “to get your taser out and tase

him.” Id. Deputy Stoney then used his taser on Appellant’s back, and the deputies were

able to get his hands behind his back and cuff him. (T. at 378). Deputy Terrell then asked

Deputy Stoney if he was okay and Dep. Stoney responded that “he bit the fuck out of my

chest.” (T. at 379). Appellant continued to cuss at the deputies and attempted to kick

them. (T. at 379-380). Dep. Terrell explained that he was able to stop Appellant from

kicking them by taking one leg, crossing it into the pit and folding the other one over,

thereby immobilizing the legs. (T. at 381). He recalled that Appellant sustained a cut

above his left eye when he hit it on the table when they went to the ground. (T. at 382).

       {¶22} Deputy Chancellor Stoney testified to the events which took place on June

9, 2020. He stated that he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt and a tactical vest, (T. at

432). He recalled that he told Dep. Terrell that he was going “hands on” meaning that he
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                         7

was going to be the one to put his hands on Appellant and take him into custody. (T. at

436). He testified that when he entered the residence, he encountered Appellant in the

kitchen area and ordered him to turn around and put his hands behind his back, but that

he did not comply and continued to back away. Id. Then when Dep. Stoney went to obtain

Appellant’s wrists and put his hands behind his back, a struggle ensued. Id. He recalled

that Appellant had his face in the deputy’s right chest/armpit area and that Appellant bit

him. (T. at 437). The men then fell to the ground as Dep. Stoney “struggled to get

compliance” of Appellant. Id. He next deployed his taser and was able to gain control of

Appellant’s wrists and place him in handcuffs. Id. He testified that when he was on the

ground with Appellant, Appellant continued to kick his feet at him. Id. Dep. Stoney then

identified photographs depicting his injuries, including a cut he received to his forearm, a

gash on his arm, and the area where he was bitten. (T. at 438-441). He testified that the

bite from Appellant was painful, in the range of 8 on a 10-point scale. (T. at 441-442).

       {¶23} On cross-examination, Deputy Stoney was asked to explain to the jury what

he meant in his written report when he stated that he “delivered closed hand strikes.” (T.

at 468). Dep. Stoney explained that “[a] closed hand strike is essentially a punch.” Id.

       {¶24} The body cameras of Deputy Stoney and Deputy Terrell were played for the

jury and introduced into evidence.

       {¶25} Appellant did not testify on his own behalf nor, did he call any witnesses.

       {¶26} On March 17, 2022, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the sole charge of

assault on a peace officer.

       {¶27} On March 17, 2022, a sentencing hearing was held wherein the trial court

sentenced Appellant to ten (10) months, local incarceration.
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                         8

       {¶28} On March 29, 2022, the trial court entered the Jury Verdict and Sentencing

Entry on the docket.

       {¶29} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignments of error on

appeal:

                                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       {¶30} “I. WHETHER THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT

EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR THE INDICTED CHARGE BEYOND A

REASONABLE DOUBT AND IF THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, VIOLATING APPELLANT'S GUARANTEES OF DUE

PROCESS.

       {¶31} II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY

FAILING TO PROPERLY INSTRUCT THE JURY ON SELF-DEFENSE.”

                                                 I.

       {¶32} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues that his conviction was

against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.

       {¶33} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror and “in reviewing the entire record,

weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses,

and determines whether in resolving conflicts in evidence the jury ‘clearly lost its way and

created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and

a new trial ordered.’ ” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 1997–Ohio–52, 678

N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983).
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                            9

       {¶34} An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence

is to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492,

paragraph two of the syllabus (1991).

       {¶35} Appellant herein was charged and convicted of Assault, in violation of R.C.

§2903.13, which provides, “[no] person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause

physical harm to another or to another's unborn.”

       {¶36} R.C. §2901.01(A)(3) provides, “ ‘Physical harm to persons’ means any

injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.”

       {¶37} “A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware

that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a

certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that

such circumstances probably exist. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact

is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person subjectively

believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts

with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.” R.C. §2901.22(B).

       {¶38} Generally, assault is a misdemeanor of the first degree. R.C.

§2903.13(C)(1). Pursuant to R.C. §2903.13(C)(5), where the victim of the offense is a

peace officer engaged in the performance of his official duties, the crime is elevated to a

felony of the fourth degree.

       {¶39} Appellant herein argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that he “knowingly” caused “physical harm” to Deputy Stoney.
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                        10

       {¶40} The intent with which an act is committed may be inferred from the act itself

and the surrounding circumstances, including acts and statements of a defendant. State

v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 60, 1995-Ohio-168, 656 N.E.2d 623, 634 (1995); State v.

Wallen, 21 Ohio App.2d 27, 34, 254 N.E.2d 716, 722 (5th Dist. 1969). Thus, “[t]he test for

whether a defendant acted knowingly is a subjective one, but it is decided on objective

criteria.” State v. McDaniel, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 16221, 1998 WL 214606 (May 1,

1998), citing State v. Elliott, 104 Ohio App.3d 812, 663 N.E.2d 412 (10th Dist. 1995).

       {¶41} Here, the evidence was sufficient to support all of the necessary elements

of assault, pursuant to R.C. §2919.25(A). Appellant knowingly fought with and bit Deputy

Stoney more than once. Appellant is presumed to understand the reasonable and

probable consequences of his actions. It is reasonable and probable to assume that when

someone bites another person, the aggressor knows that the victim will suffer some harm.

State v. Lack, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200334, 2021-Ohio-2956, ¶21-22. Deputy Stoney

testified that at the time of Appellant's actions, the bite caused him pain. (T. at 441-442).

On the body cam footage played for the jury and introduced into evidence, Deputy Stoney

immediately acknowledges that he has been bitten.

       {¶42} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we

conclude that a reasonable person could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that

Appellant knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to a peace officer.

       {¶43} We hold, therefore, that the state met its burden of production regarding the

elements of assault of a peace officer; accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to

support Appellant's conviction for assault involving Deputy Stoney.
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                        11

       {¶44} As to the weight of the evidence, the issue is whether the jury created a

manifest miscarriage of justice in resolving conflicting evidence, even though the

evidence of guilt was legally sufficient. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386–387,

678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

       {¶45} Here, the jury as the trier of fact was free to accept or reject any and all of

the evidence offered by the parties and assess the witness's credibility. “While the trier of

fact may take note of the inconsistencies and resolve or discount them accordingly * * *

such inconsistencies do not render defendant's conviction against the manifest weight or

sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Craig, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 99AP–739, 1999 WL

29752 (Mar 23, 2000) citing State v. Nivens, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 95APA09–1236, 1996

WL 284714 (May 28, 1996). Indeed, the trier of fact need not believe all of a witness’

testimony, but may accept only portions of it as true. State v. Raver, 10th Dist. Franklin

No. 02AP-604, 2003-Ohio-958, ¶ 21, citing State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 67, 197 N.E.2d

548 (1964); State v. Burke, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP-1238, 2003-Ohio-2889, citing

State v. Caldwell, 79 Ohio App.3d 667, 607 N.E.2d 1096 (4th Dist. 1992).

       {¶46} The jury heard the testimony from Major Wilkinson, Deputy Stoney, Deputy

Terrell and Deputy Oakley, who were all subjected to cross-examination. The jury also

saw the deputies’ body camera videos.

       {¶47} We find that this is not an “ ‘exceptional case in which the evidence weighs

heavily against the conviction.’ ” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386–387, 678

N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d at 175, 485 N.E.2d 717. Based upon

the foregoing and the entire record in this matter we find Appellant's conviction is not

against the sufficiency or the manifest weight of the evidence. To the contrary, the jury
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                        12

appears to have fairly and impartially decided the matters before them. The jury heard

the witnesses, evaluated the evidence, and was convinced of Appellant's guilt. The jury

neither lost their way nor created a miscarriage of justice in convicting Appellant of the

offense.

       {¶48} Finally, upon careful consideration of the record in its entirety, we find that

there is substantial evidence presented which if believed, proves all the elements of the

crime for which Appellant was convicted.

       {¶49} Accordingly, we find Appellant's conviction was not against the manifest

weight or sufficiency of the evidence.

       {¶50} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled

                                                 II.

       {¶51} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred

in not providing the proper jury instruction on self-defense. We disagree.

       {¶52} Appellant claims that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and

incorrectly failed to shift the burden to the State to disprove self-defense.

       {¶53} Here, Appellant’s crime was committed on June 9, 2020, and his trial

commenced on March 15, 2022. H.B. 228, which amended the provisions in R.C.

§2901.05, that define self-defense was effective on March 28, 2019. Thus, it was effective

both before the alleged offense occurred in this case and the trial in this matter. The trial

court, however, gave an instruction to the jury based on the law in effect prior to the

amendment.

       {¶54} At the time the briefs in this case were filed, the issues of the proper

procedure for burden-shifting and the appropriate standard for Appellate review of a self-
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                       13

defense claim were before the Ohio Supreme Court in a case that has now been released

as State v. Messenger, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4562.

       {¶55} To support a claim of self-defense involving the use of non-deadly force, a

defendant must show that “(1) he was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to

the affray; (2) he had reasonable grounds to believe or an honest belief that he or she

was in imminent danger of bodily harm, and (3) he did not use more force than was

reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent danger of bodily harm.” State v.

Paskins, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2022-Ohio-4024, ¶ 48 (5th Dist.). Self-defense is an

affirmative defense - not an element of a crime. Messenger at ¶ 24. “[A] determination as

to whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in reviewing and weighing the

evidence presents a question of law requiring de novo review.” Dublin v. Starr, 10th Dist.

Franklin No. 21AP-173, 2022-Ohio-2298, ¶ 50.

       {¶56} In Messenger, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof where

a defendant asserts a claim of self-defense under the version of the statute that became

effective March 28, 2019. It recognized that “R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) triggers the state's duty

to disprove self-defense so long as ‘there is evidence presented that tends to support that

the accused person used the force in self-defense’ ” - a burden that is not all that heavy.

Id. at ¶ 20, 22 (“The reference in R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) to ‘evidence presented that tends to

support’ self-defense indicates that the defendant's burden of production is not a heavy

one and that it might even be satisfied through the state's own evidence.”). As such, “a

defendant charged with an offense involving the use of force has the burden of producing

legally sufficient evidence that the defendant's use of force was in self-defense.” Id. at ¶

25. “[I]f the defendant's evidence and any reasonable inferences about that evidence
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                         14

would allow a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of a self-defense claim when

viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, then the defendant has satisfied the

burden,” and the state must then disprove self-defense. Id. at ¶ 25. In that case, “the

sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to [the defendant's] burden of

production and a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to the

state's burden of persuasion.” Id. at ¶ 26.

       {¶57} However, in State v. Brooks, the Ohio Supreme Court advised that in that

case, even though the former version of R.C. §2901.05 was incorrectly applied at trial, “if,

as the state has argued, Brooks was not entitled to a self-defense claim, then the error

that is the subject of the certified question would be harmless”. State v. Brooks, __ Ohio

St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-2478

       {¶58} Upon review of the record before us, we find that Appellant herein was not

entitled to a self-defense instruction. Here, Appellant did not take the stand to assert self-

defense or provide any evidence of self-defense at trial. While a defendant does not need

to testify to be entitled to a self-defense instruction, there must be evidence, however, to

support the instruction. State v. McDade, 113 Ohio App. 397, 404 (1959) (“The evidence

of self-defense may come wholly from the state....”).

       {¶59} The only statements by Appellant were made during closing arguments,

which does not constitute evidence. It is well established that closing arguments are not

evidence and that statements made during opening statements and closing arguments

are not evidence. See State v. Frazier, 73 Ohio St.3d 323, 338, 652 N.E.2d 1000 (1995);

Nagel v. Nagel, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 09CA009704, 2010-Ohio-3942, ¶ 16; Ernsberger v.
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                         15

Ernsberger, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100675, 2014-Ohio-4470, ¶ 35. The court instructed

the jury to that effect. (T. at 588).

       {¶60} Appellant did not present any testimony as to why he was not at fault in

creating the situation, why he reasonably believed he needed to use force to defend

himself, or that the force used was reasonable. We therefore conclude that Appellant did

not meet his initial burden, and the trial court should have refused to instruct the jury on

self-defense.

       {¶61} Further, as it pertains to law enforcement officers, under well-settled Ohio

law, “ ‘[i]n the absence of excessive or unnecessary force by an arresting officer, a private

citizen may not use force to resist arrest by one he knows, or has good reason to believe,

is an authorized police officer engaged in the performance of his duties, whether or not

the arrest is illegal under the circumstances.’ ” (Emphasis added.) State v. Mann, 19 Ohio

St.3d 34, 39, 482 N.E.2d 592 (1985), quoting Columbus v. Fraley, 41 Ohio St.2d 173, 324

N.E.2d 735 (1975), paragraph three of the syllabus. Even if Appellant’s arrest had been

unlawful, whether it was or was not is immaterial to the assault charge. Unless an

arresting officer uses excessive or unnecessary force, a private citizen may not use force

to resist arrest by an authorized police officer, regardless of whether the arrest is illegal.

State v. Whetstone, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2015-L-114, 2016-Ohio-6989, ¶ 23, citing

Columbus v. Fraley, 41 Ohio St.2d 173, 324 N.E.2d 735 (1975), paragraph three of the

syllabus. “Consequently, if the arrest was unlawful and a citizen forcibly resisted arrest,

the citizen may not be subject to prosecution for resisting arrest, but would be subject to

prosecution for assault on a peace officer.” Id
Guernsey County, Case No. 22 CA 11                                                  16

      {¶62} Accordingly, we hold any error committed as it pertained to the instruction

on self-defense was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Batrez, 5th Dist.

Richland No. 2007–CA–75, 2008-Ohio-3117, 2008 WL 2587610; State v. Galloway, 5th

Dist. No. 15 CAC 11 0089, 2016-Ohio-7767, 74 N.E.3d 754, ¶ 27.

      {¶63} Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶64} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Guernsey County, Ohio, is

affirmed.

By: Wise, J.

Gwin, P. J., and

Hoffman, J., concur.

JWW/d 0126