State v. Davis

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 5412

Syllabus

Jury instructions; abuse of discretion; flight instruction; consciousness of guilt; manifest weight; self-defense; reasonable belief; imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; objective and subjective belief; bona fide belief; Crim.R. 12.2; Crim.R. 29; Crim.R. 52(A); R.C. 2903.01(A); R.C. 2903.01(B); R.C. 2923.162(A)(3); R.C. 2903.11(A)(1); R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); R.C. 2921.12(A)(1); R.C. 2921.31(A); R.C. 2921.04(B)(2); R.C. 2941.141(A); R.C. 2941.145(A). Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving a flight instruction because the evidence showed more than \mere departure\ from the scene of the shooting. Appellant remained hidden near the scene while police arrived but did not approach despite the safety afforded by police presence. He stayed at a hotel following the shooting, changed his Instagram handle, attempted to delete Instagram direct messages, and disassembled and discarded the firearm used in the shooting, all conduct supporting a jury instruction on consciousness of guilt. In any event, the instruction's limiting language left weight and motive to the jury, defeating any claim of prejudice. Appellant's conviction was not against the manifest weight as to self-defense. Video and audio established that only appellant fired. He never claimed anyone brandished a weapon or threatened him, and his recorded statement described immediately \letting off shots\ when the victim exited the car. The jury could reasonably find the State disproved a bona fide, objectively reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm and that appellant's use of deadly force was disproportionate to any perceived threat. This was not the exceptional case where the jury lost its way.