[Cite as State v. Densmore, 2009-Ohio-6870.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HENRY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 7-08-04
v.
DANA DENSMORE, JR., OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Henry County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 07 CR 0084
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 28, 2009
APPEARANCES:
Matthew O. Hutchinson for Appellant
John H. Hanna for Appellee Case No. 7-08-04
PRESTON, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Dana Densmore Jr. (hereinafter “Densmore”),
appeals the Henry County Court of Common Pleas judgment of conviction on one
count of felonious assault. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} This matter stems from an altercation outside a bar in Liberty
Center, Ohio in the early morning hours of December 9, 2007. It is undisputed
that Densmore used a pocket knife on the victim, Ron Vicars1 (hereinafter
“Vicars”), and is responsible for his injury; however, at trial, Densmore relied on
the claim of self-defense.
{¶3} On December 12, 2007, Densmore was indicted on one count of
felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the second
degree. Densmore entered a plea of not guilty. A jury trial was held on June 10-
11, 2008. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Densmore guilty of
felonious assault. On July 23, 2008, Densmore was sentenced to a term of three
years in prison and ordered to pay $629.52 in restitution to Vicars.
{¶4} Densmore now appeals and raises three assignments of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO THE INFERIOR DEGREE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.
1 This Court notes that the victim’s last name is spelled differently as between the parties’ briefs; therefore, we elect to use the spelling used in the transcript: “Vicars.”
-2- Case No. 7-08-04
{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Densmore argues that the trial court
erred by not instructing the jury to the inferior degree offense of aggravated
assault when there was sufficient evidence of serious provocation to warrant the
additional instruction. In response, the State argues that there was no evidence of
provocation nor was there evidence that Densmore was under a fit of rage or
sudden passion. In addition, the State asserts that since the trial court instructed
the jury on self-defense, an instruction on the inferior offense of aggravated
assault would have been contradictory.
{¶6} First, we note that Densmore did not object to the instructions when
they were given by the trial court. As a result “[t]he failure to object to a jury
instruction constitutes a waiver of any claim of error relative thereto, unless, but
for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v.
Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12, 444 N.E.2d 1332, at syllabus. Absent plain
error, the failure to object to improprieties in jury instructions, as required by
Crim.R. 30, is a waiver of the issue on appeal. Id. at 13, citing State v. Humphries
(1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 95, 364 N.E.2d 1354.
{¶7} Pursuant to Crim.R. 52(B), “[p]lain errors or defects affecting
substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention
of the court.” State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240. The
Ohio Supreme Court, in Barnes, articulated a three-part test for finding plain error:
-3- Case No. 7-08-04
First, there must be an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule. Second, the error must be plain. To be “plain” within the meaning of Crim.R. 52(B), an error must be an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings. Third, the error must have affected “substantial rights.” We have interpreted this aspect of the rule to mean that the trial court’s error must have affected the outcome of the trial.
Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[o]nly
extraordinary circumstances and the prevention of a miscarriage of justice warrant
a finding of plain error.” State v. Brown, 3d Dist. No. 8-02-09, 2002-Ohio-4755,
¶8, citing State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804, at paragraph
three of the syllabus.
{¶8} Densmore was charged with felonious assault, which is codified in
R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and provides, “[n]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt
to cause physical harm to another or another’s unborn by means of a deadly
weapon or dangerous ordnance.” Aggravated assault is an “inferior degree”
offense to felonious assault, which means that the two offenses are similar except
for the “additional mitigating element of serious provocation” in the aggravated
assault offense. State v. Deem (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 205, 210-11, 533 N.E.2d
294. That mitigating factor in the offense of aggravated assault requires proof that
the defendant acted “under the influence of sudden passion or in a fit of rage,
either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that
is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force.” R.C.
-4- Case No. 7-08-04
2903.12(A)(2). Moreover, the defendant has the burden of proving the mitigating
factor by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Nowden, 2nd Dist. No.
07CA0120, 2008-Ohio-5383, ¶56, citing Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d at 210-11.
Provocation, to be serious, must be reasonably sufficient to bring on extreme stress and the provocation must be reasonably sufficient to incite or to arouse the defendant into using deadly force. In determining whether the provocation was reasonably sufficient to incite the defendant into using deadly force, the court must consider the emotional and mental state of the defendant and the conditions and circumstances that surrounded him at the time.
Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205, at paragraph five of the syllabus, quoting State v. Mabry
(1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 13, 449 N.E.2d 16, paragraph five of the syllabus. As a
result, in a case involving a felonious assault, if the defendant “presents sufficient
evidence of serious provocation (such that a jury could both reasonably acquit
defendant of felonious assault and convict defendant of aggravated assault), an
instruction on aggravated assault (as a different degree of felonious assault) must
be given.” Id. at 211 (emphasis in original).
{¶9} At trial, the State called five witnesses that were present on the night
of the altercation. The first witness the State called was Denise Wittenmeyer
(hereinafter “Wittenmeyer”), the owner of the bar where the altercation took place.
(June 10, 2008 Tr. at 27-28). She testified that she was working by herself on the
night of the altercation. (Id. at 29). She stated that she had known Densmore for
about five years and that she had seen Densmore there that night. (Id.). Even
-5- Case No. 7-08-04
though the two of them only engaged in small talk that evening, she said that she
could tell Densmore was acting “different than usual,” and not acting like himself.
(Id.). Wittenmeyer testified that she witnessed Densmore talk to and poke one of
the other patrons (Allan “Scott” Frankenberger) (hereinafter “Frankenberger”) in
the chest, which caused Frankenberger to become agitated, and as a result, she had
to separate the two. (Id. at 30). When it came time to close, she said that she
asked everyone to leave, but that Densmore refused to leave because he wanted to
talk to her. (Id. at 31). So, another patron (Vicars), walked Densmore out with a
few of the other patrons. (Id.). While Wittenmeyer acknowledged on cross-
examination that Vicars had physically led Densmore out, she said that Vicars had
just put his arm around Densmore’s shoulder – that his actions were more polite,
than aggressive. (Id. at 37). Then, Wittenmeyer said that after everyone went
outside, Vicars ran back into the bar and told her to call 911 because he had been
stabbed. (Id. at 32). She saw that Vicars had a cut approximately two inches long
on his arm, and she called 911 and stayed on the phone until the paramedics and
sheriff’s department arrived. (Id. at 33). Wittenmeyer testified that she did not
think there had been any issues between Vicars and Densmore that night. (Id. at
31).
{¶10} Next, the State called the three other people who had been there that
night with Vicars: Sarah Vicars (the victim’s wife) (hereinafter “Vicar’s wife”),
-6- Case No. 7-08-04
Frankenberger, and his girlfriend Beth Blaze (hereinafter “Blaze”). (Id. at 38).
They all testified that on the night of the altercation, they were sitting at a booth in
the bar talking, when Densmore (whom none of them had ever met before)
unexpectedly sat down with them. (Id. at 39, 74-74, 91-92). They stated that
Densmore never said anything to them while he was sitting at their booth, but
rather just sat there and stared at everybody before getting up and leaving soon
afterwards. (Id. at 39, 75). When it came time for the bar to close, Vicar’s wife
stayed in the bar with Wittenmeyer because, at some point when the bar was
closing, her husband had told her to stay inside because he thought there was
“going to be an altercation.” (Id. at 44-45). The next thing she remembered was
her husband running back inside the bar, asking someone to call 911 because he
had been stabbed. (Id. at 41).
{¶11} Frankenberger testified that after Densmore left their booth, he never
saw him again until the bar was closing, at which time, Densmore “approached
[him], kind of got in [his] face not knowing who [he] was, started poking [him] in
[his] chest,” and Wittenmeyer subsequently intervened. (Id. at 77). Then at that
point, Frankenberger stated that Vicars tried to get Densmore to leave the bar and
“grabbed him by the arm of the coat and just kind of, we pulled him outside.” (Id.
at 78). When they (Blaze, Vicars, Densmore, and himself) were outside, they
started smoking, but Densmore kept trying to talk to Frankenberger, and Vicars
-7- Case No. 7-08-04
was trying to get Densmore to leave. (Id. at 78). After they were done smoking,
Blaze and Frankenberger walked out to their car, and when Frankenberger turned
back around, he saw Vicars and Densmore on the ground. (Id. at 79).
Frankenberger testified that when he ran over to them, Vicars had Densmore
pinned down and asked Frankenberger to get “the knife.” (Id. at 79). However,
Frankenberger said he was unable to get the knife away from Densmore, so he
asked Vicars if he wanted him to break Densmore’s legs so that he would not be
able to get up and follow them, but Vicars told him no. (Id.). Instead,
Frankenberger said that they counted to three and both took off in opposite
directions – Frankenberger ran to his car and drove off with his girlfriend, while
Vicars ran back inside the bar. (Id. at 80). Frankenberger testified that while
Vicars had seemed aggravated with Densmore when he was trying to get him to
leave the bar, Frankenberger said that he never saw Vicars make any aggressive
gestures towards Densmore that night. (Id. at 81).
{¶12} In addition, Blaze testified that when the bar was closing, she saw
Densmore trying to talk to Frankenberger and that he had wanted to know what
Frankenberger’s problem was with him. (Id.). She said that Vicars escorted
Densmore out of the bar, and when the four were outside the bar, she said they
tried to get Densmore to leave, but he still was trying to talk to Frankenberger.
(Id. at 94). Blaze testified that eventually she got Frankenberger to leave with her,
-8- Case No. 7-08-04
and when they got to their car, they saw Vicars and Densmore on the ground. (Id.
at 95). She testified that Frankenberger went over to assist, and she saw all three
of them struggle until she heard one of them count to three, at which time, Vicars
ran into the bar and Frankenberger ran back to the car. (Id. at 95-96). When he
got into the car and they were driving away, Densmore started chasing them down
the street and yelled something unintelligible at them. (Id. at 96).
{¶13} The last witness called for the State was the victim, Vicars. (Id. at
100). Vicars testified that he had never met Densmore before that night when
Densmore pulled up a chair to his group’s booth. (Id. at 101). At the end of the
night, Vicars noticed Densmore was trying to talk to Wittenmeyer, but that she
was trying to get him to leave, so Vicars said he walked Densmore outside. (Id. at
102). When they all got outside, Vicars said Densmore and Frankenberger were
arguing with one another, but that he eventually got the two of them to separate
and walk to their respective cars. (Id. at 102). As Frankenberger was walking
away, Vicars testified that the following occurred:
Vicars: * * * Dana Densmore had said, you know, we’ll just let Jesus straighten it out, okay, and then I had said, you know, it’s 2:30 in the morning, the police will be coming by, wake up in our own beds, Scott agreed, was going back to his car, and Dana had positioned himself to my left and had said something to me that he was the rapture, and not really sure of what all was said, just after that I know I was pushed, I pushed back, when he come back at me, I swung and hit him, he went back a number of steps, come back at me again, I swung and hit him again, and then the third time that he come at me I didn’t swing, I just
-9- Case No. 7-08-04
tackled him and got him on the ground because I thought I was going to hurt him, because he just kept coming back, not, at that point was not aware that I had been cut or stabbed or anything until, when I had him on the ground, and I don’t know how I was positioned on him but somehow or another I was on him and holding his arm and like this, the knife blade stuck out and my hand was there, and that’s when I called for Scott to come back to try to get the knife out of his hands or out of his hand and, you know, he tried to grab a hold of it but couldn’t and I told Scott to go back to his car and from there, you know, I jumped up and got back into the bar.
(Id. at 103-04). Besides Densmore sitting down at their booth that night, Vicars
testified that there were no other interactions between the two of them that night.
(Id. at 108). On cross-examination, Vicars admitted to having one or two drinks
that night and that he had pushed Densmore towards his car after Densmore had
pushed him. (Id. at 110, 115). In addition, Vicars said that Densmore appeared
more agitated than a normal person, but that he could not say for sure whether
Densmore had been highly intoxicated. (Id. at 120).
{¶14} Densmore’s version of the events leading up to the altercation was
slightly different. He stated that at the bar that night he had walked around talking
to Wittenmeyer and other people. (Id. at 127). When it came time for the bar to
close, he said that he did not feel like leaving and asked Wittenmeyer if he could
stay and talk to her for a few minutes. (Id. at 128). That was when he stated that
Vicars came up behind him and grabbed his arm “pretty good” and escorted him
outside. (Id.). When he got outside, he said that everyone else except
-10- Case No. 7-08-04
Wittenmeyer was outside, and they were all smoking. (Id.). So, he asked
someone for a cigarette and stayed out there with everyone and had a “general
conversation.” (Id.) Then, Densmore said one of the couples started to leave, and
that was when Vicars started pushing him towards his truck. (Id.). Densmore said
that he turned around and told Vicars to stop pushing him and to leave him alone,
but that was when Vicars hit him in the face and he went down. (Id.). Densmore
testified that when he went down, Vicars got on top of him and “kept punching, I
was getting to the point where I couldn’t breath, getting to where I couldn’t see
very well because getting hit in the face, so, you know, I was getting pretty close
to passing out from not being able to breath.” (Id. at 128-129). That was when he
took out his pocket knife, used his leg to open it, and cut Vicars to get his arm off
of his neck. (Id. at 129). Vicars then told him that he was going to call the police,
at which point, Densmore said that he stayed outside and waited for the police to
arrive. (Id. at 130). Densmore testified that he usually keeps a pocket knife on
him, but that he typically uses it as a tool, such as for cutting rope and wire, and to
clean his nails. (Id.). Densmore stated that he felt that he had tried to do
everything possible to get Vicars off of him, but believed that using his pocket
knife was the only way to get Vicars to stop choking him. (Id.).
{¶15} On cross-examination, Densmore admitted that he had kept refusing
to leave the bar when Wittenmeyer was trying to close, and that he was eventually
-11- Case No. 7-08-04
escorted outside. (Id. at 136). However, Densmore could not recall poking
Frankenberger in the chest and arguing with him that night inside the bar, but he
did recall arguing with him outside. (Id. at 137). Densmore could also not recall
whether Frankenberger or Blaze came back to help, but Densmore did admit to
chasing a vehicle down the street after the altercation because he said that he did
not know whether they were going to come back after him. (Id. at 141).
Densmore denied saying anything about being the rapture to Vicars. (Id. at 144).
In addition, Densmore admitted to taking anti-depressants and he said that when
he went to the bar he had told Wittenmeyer that he had not taken his medication,
so that he could have a good time that night. (Id. at 144-45). He also testified that
he had had a few drinks, and that he was pretty close to being drunk. (Id. at 145).
{¶16} Based on the record, we believe the evidence was insufficient to
warrant a jury instruction on aggravated assault because there was insufficient
evidence of serious provocation. There is no evidence that Vicars provoked
Densmore into a fit of rage or sudden passion. Even if we were to believe
Densmore’s version of the events that Vicars hit him first, Densmore’s testimony
fails to demonstrate that he was in a state of rage or sudden passion when he
stabbed Vicars; in fact, it demonstrates the opposite, which was that Densmore
rationally stabbed Vicars.
-12- Case No. 7-08-04
{¶17} Densmore’s testimony was that after Vicars knocked him to the
ground, he stabbed him to try to get Vicars off of him. Densmore emphasized that
he had tried to do everything possible to get Vicars off of him, but that using his
pocket knife was the only way to get Vicars to stop choking him. When
explaining how he stabbed Vicars, Densmore stated,
I had reached around, because I couldn’t get this arm free to do anything, reached around in my pocket, pulled my pocket knife out that I carry, well, I carried that particular for at least 10 years, and I proceeded to open the blade with my thumb and then I used my leg to open it the rest of the way, reached up, cut him to get his arm off of me so I could start breathing again, and within seconds after that he got up and went one way and I went the other way.
(June 10, 2008 Tr. at 129). Densmore even physically demonstrated his actions
during the altercation and gave the court a reasonable and rational play-by-play
account of the incident. (Id. at 133-35). All of this evidence illustrates that
Densmore’s actions were calculated, and not in a state of rage.
{¶18} Moreover, we note that the trial court instructed the jury on self-
defense, which is a “complete defense to all substantive elements of the crime
charged’ (or, consequently, to any lesser included offense).” State v. Rick, 3d
Dist. No. 9-08-27, 2009-Ohio-785, ¶64, citing State v. Shadd (June 14, 1994), 3d
Dist. No. 9-94-5, quoting State v. Nolton (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 133, 135, 249
N.E.2d 797. This Court has stated that a defendant who asserts self-defense “is
not entitled under Ohio law to instructions on self-defense and on lesser included
-13- Case No. 7-08-04
offenses, but must choose between the two.” Id., quoting Shadd, 3d Dist. No. 9-
94-5, citing Nolton, 19 Ohio St.2d at 135. See, also, State v. Briggs, 3d Dist. No.
1-06-27, 2006-Ohio-5144, ¶11;2 State v. Gutierrez (Sept. 21, 1995), 3d Dist. No.
5-95-10, at *4. Throughout the entire trial, Densmore asserted this affirmative
defense. Densmore’s defense attorney even stated during his closing arguments:
So I believe, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he definitely proved to you the area of self defense. He was not at fault in creating the situation that gave rise to the event of his injury as I explained before and the position that he was on his back, somebody on him, sitting on him, getting ready or choke or choking him, he had no position in his mind and reasonable grounds to believe even if it was… (INAUDIBLE)…that that’s what he needed to do to get out of the situation that he was there.
(June 11, 2008 Tr. at 18). Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court
erred in failing to instruct the jury on aggravated assault because there was
insufficient evidence to warrant the instruction and the trial court instructed on
self-defense.
{¶19} Densmore’s first assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II
THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO “DEADLY FORCE” AND SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST DANGER OF BODILY HARM.
2 In State v. Saldana, 3d Dist. No. 16-08-09, 2008-Ohio-5829, ¶10 fn.1, this Court recognized that even though we had misstated the Ohio Supreme Court’s language in Deem (calling aggravated assault a lesser included offense rather than an inferior offense of felonious assault), we found that its holding was applied properly.
-14- Case No. 7-08-04
{¶20} In his second assignment of error, Densmore argues that the trial
court improperly instructed the jury because it failed to define “deadly force” and
failed to give the jury the non-deadly force self-defense instructions.
{¶21} As Densmore admits in his brief, he did not object to the instructions
when they were given by the trial court. As a result “[t]he failure to object to a jury
instruction constitutes a waiver of any claim of error relative thereto, unless, but
for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.”
Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12, at syllabus. Absent plain error, the failure to object
to improprieties in jury instructions, as required by Crim.R. 30, is a waiver of the
issue on appeal. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d at 13, citing Humphries, 51 Ohio St.2d
95.
{¶22} Pursuant to Crim.R. 52(B), “[p]lain errors or defects affecting
substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention
of the court.” Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27. The Ohio Supreme Court, in Barnes,
articulated a three part test for the finding of plain error.
First, there must be an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule. Second, the error must be plain. To be “plain” within the meaning of Crim.R. 52(B), an error must be an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings. Third, the error must have affected “substantial rights.” We have interpreted this aspect of the rule to mean that the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial.
-15- Case No. 7-08-04
Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[o]nly
extraordinary circumstances and the prevention of a miscarriage of justice warrant
a finding of plain error.” Brown, 2002-Ohio-4755, ¶8, citing Long, 53 Ohio St.2d
91, at paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶23} Generally, a trial court has broad discretion to decide how to fashion
jury instructions. The trial court must not, however, fail to “fully and completely
give the jury all instructions which are relevant and necessary for the jury to weigh
the evidence and discharge its duty as the fact finder.” State v. Comen (1990), 50
Ohio St.3d 206, 553 N.E.2d 640, paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶24} Self-defense is an affirmative defense, which means that the burden
of going forward is on the defendant who must prove each element by a
preponderance of the evidence. R.C. 2901.05; Struthers v. Williams, 7th Dist. No.
07 MA 55, 2008-Ohio-6637, ¶12, citing State v. Jackson (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d
281, 283, 490 N.E.2d 893. In asserting the affirmative defense of self-defense, the
defendant cannot simply deny or contradict the evidence that has been presented
by the State; rather, he must admit the prohibited conduct but assert surrounding
facts and circumstances that justified engaging in the prohibited conduct.
Struthers, 2008-Ohio-6637, ¶12, citing State v. Grubb (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d
227, 282, 675 N.E.2d 1353.
-16- Case No. 7-08-04
{¶25} There are essentially two different forms of self-defense in Ohio: (1)
self-defense against danger of bodily harm (“non-deadly force” self-defense); and
(2) self-defense against danger of death or great bodily harm (“deadly force” self-
defense). The elements of self-defense that a defendant must prove differ
depending on the level of force used. Struthers, 2008-Ohio-6637, at ¶13. The
main difference between the two instructions is that the deadly force self-defense
instruction is a more rigid standard than the non-deadly force self-defense
instruction.
{¶26} The deadly force self-defense instruction requires the defendant to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) he perceived himself to be in
grave danger; and (2) he did not have a duty to retreat, under the circumstances.
State v. Hansen (May 7, 2002), 4th Dist. No. 01CA15, at *2, citing State v.
Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 74, 388 N.E.2d 755. In contrast, the non-deadly
force self-defense instruction only requires the defendant to show that he
reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend himself; moreover,
there is generally no duty to retreat in non-deadly force circumstances. Id. at *3,
citing Columbus v. Dawson (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 141, 514 N.E.2d 908.
{¶27} Densmore argues that the outcome of the case would have been
different had the trial court defined “deadly force” and instructed them as to non-
deadly force self-defense. He asserts that had it been given the definition and
-17- Case No. 7-08-04
instruction, the jury would have determined that his conduct did not amount to
deadly force. Specifically, Densmore points to the following in support of his
claim: (1) he had used a small pocket knife, (2) the injury only required stitches,
(3) there was no evidence that the cut to Vicar’s arm posed a substantial risk of
death, (4) his small pocket knife could not have caused a very serious injury since
Vicars was wearing a heavy winter coat, and (5) Vicars had Densmore restrained
so that he could not have caused any other injuries to Vicars. Overall, Densmore
argues that while his actions may have caused a substantial risk of physical harm,
his actions did not rise to the level of causing substantial risk of death.
{¶28} We find Densmore’s arguments unpersuasive. Just because a
defendant does not actually cause serious injury to the victim, does not mean that
his actions did not amount to deadly force. See Hansen, 4th Dist. No. 01CA15, at
*4 (finding slashing another person with a lock-blade knife carries a substantial
risk of death warranting the deadly force self-defense instructions, even though the
injury caused by defendant was not serious); State v. Wagner (July 14, 2000), 11th
Dist. No. 99-L-043, at *3 (rejecting defendant’s argument that using a broken
wineglass was not deadly force because it did not seriously injure the victim);
State v. Chlebowski (May 28, 1992), 8th Dist. No. 60808, at *4 (rejecting
defendant’s argument that the instructions should have been tailored to the facts of
the instant case, which involved a charge of merely causing physical harm,
-18- Case No. 7-08-04
because defendant had used a deadly weapon in inflicting physical harm). Deadly
force is defined as “any force that carries a substantial risk that it will proximately
result in the death of any person.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(2). Clearly, using a knife on
someone’s person that can easily cut through an overcoat and clothing carries a
substantial risk of death. Moreover, other courts have also found that the use of a
small knife on another person’s body constituted deadly force, rather than non-
deadly force. Struthers v. Williams, 7th Dist. No. 07 MA 55, 2008-Ohio-6637,
¶13 (stating that a defendant’s act of killing a victim by stabbing him with a knife
was deemed “deadly force” by the Ohio Supreme Court); State v. Skinner, 9th
Dist. No. 06CA009023, 2007-Ohio-5601, ¶19; State v. Sims, 8th Dist. No. 85608,
2005-Ohio-5846, ¶17; Hansen, 4th Dist. No. 01CA15, at *4 (finding that using a
lock blade knife warrants an instruction on the use of deadly force).
{¶29} Furthermore, this Court notes that the parties appeared to have
conceded that Densmore’s actions amounted to deadly force. For example, the
defense counsel in his closing arguments stated that the evidence illustrated that
Densmore had honest belief “that he was in imminent danger of death or great
bodily harm, and that is [sic] only reasonable means of withdraw from such danger
was by the use of deadly force.” (June 11, 2008 Tr. at 16).
-19- Case No. 7-08-04
{¶30} Therefore, we find that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as
to the definition of deadly force and non-deadly force self defense did not rise to
plain error since it is clear that Densmore’s actions amounted to deadly force.
{¶31} Densmore’s second assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III
MR. DENSMORE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE: COUNSEL DID NOT REQUEST THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, DEADLY FORCE, AND NON- DEADLY FORCE SELF-DEFENSE; COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO QUESTIONS ABOUT POST-ARREST SILENCE.
{¶32} In his third assignment of error, Densmore argues that he was denied
effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to object to the lack
of a jury instruction on aggravated assault and deadly force and non-deadly force
self-defense, and failed to object to the evidence of Densmore’s post-arrest
silence.
{¶33} A defendant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
must establish: (1) the counsel’s performance was deficient or unreasonable under
the circumstances; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.
State v. Kole (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 303, 306, 750 N.E.2d 148, citing Strickland v.
Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. In order
to show counsel’s conduct was deficient or unreasonable, the defendant must
-20- Case No. 7-08-04
overcome the presumption that counsel provided competent representation and
must show that counsel’s actions were not trial strategies prompted by reasonable
professional judgment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Counsel is entitled to a strong
presumption that all decisions fall within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance. State v. Sallie (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 673, 675, 693 N.E.2d
267. Tactical or strategic trial decisions, even if unsuccessful, do not generally
constitute ineffective assistance. State v. Carter (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 558,
651 N.E.2d 965. Rather, the errors complained of must amount to a substantial
violation of counsel’s essential duties to his client. See State v. Bradley (1989), 42
Ohio St.3d 136, 141-42, 538 N.E.2d 373, quoting State v. Lytle (1976), 48 Ohio
St.2d 391, 396, 358 N.E.2d 623, vacated on other grounds in Lytle v. Ohio (1978),
438 U.S. 910, 98 S.Ct. 3135, 57 L.Ed.2d 1154.
{¶34} First, Densmore argues that his attorney was ineffective because he
failed to object to the lack of jury instructions as to aggravated assault, deadly
force, and non-deadly force self-defense. Densmore claims that had the attorney
requested such instructions, the result would have been different. However, this
Court has already determined that Densmore was not entitled to the instruction on
aggravated assault because there was no evidence of serious provocation. See
State v. Crawford, 8th Dist. No. 22314, 2008-Ohio-4008, ¶¶26-30 (finding that
there was no ineffective assistance when defendant’s attorney failed to request
-21- Case No. 7-08-04
aggravated assault charge when defendant was asserting self-defense claim.)
Moreover, this Court has found that the jury instruction as to deadly force self-
defense was proper. See Hansen, 4th Dist. No. 01CA15, at *5 (declining to
address defendant’s ineffective assistance assignment of error since the court had
found the jury instruction as to deadly force self-defense was proper). Therefore,
we see no need to fully address these arguments since it could not have been
ineffective assistance of counsel where the defendant was not entitled to any of the
jury instructions. See id., citing James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty (1991), 74 Ohio
App.3d 788, 600 N.E.2d 736, citing South Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate
Commerce Comm. (1910), 219 U.S. 498, 514, 31 S.Ct. 279, 55 L.Ed. 310.
{¶35} Second, Densmore argues that his attorney was ineffective because
he did not object to the introduction of evidence of his post-arrest silence.
Densmore relies on the rule that states the government cannot use a defendant’s
post-arrest, post-Miranda silence as a means to impeach him if he later decides to
testify. Doyle v. Ohio (1976), 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91.
Specifically, Densmore states that the following testimony of the three law
enforcement officers involved in the case should have been objected to by his
attorney:
Deputy Walker: “I learned that Detective Sergeant Schultheis had attempted an interview with the Defendant, however he refused to make any statements or provide any information[.]” (June 10, 2008 Tr. at 51).
-22- Case No. 7-08-04
Deputy Cohrs: “I also went to the hospital where I met Detective Schultheis, we had entered the room, Detective Schultheis read him his Miranda Rights and asked him some questions but he decided to exercise his rights and not answer.” (June 10, 2008 Tr. at 62).
Detective Schultheis: “Mr. Densmore was asked when I came in that I conduct an interview in reference to the stabbing, his answer was yes, and then I read him his Miranda Rights and he invoked those rights and decided not to answer any questions until an attorney was present.” (June 10, 2008 Tr. at 68).
{¶36} We do not believe that Densmore’s trial counsel was constitutionally
deficient in this case. His trial strategy appeared to be to show that Densmore
never spoke to any of the law enforcement officers, even before his Miranda rights
were given. (June 10, 2008 Tr. at 63-64). Densmore’s trial counsel even raised
the issue at trial during Densmore’s testimony. (June 10, 2008 Tr. at 146). It is
not our place to second-guess counsel’s trial strategy, and his representation in this
case was within an acceptable range of reasonable representation. State v. Eason,
7th Dist. No. 02 BE 41, 2003-Ohio-6279, ¶133.
{¶37} Densmore’s third assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶38} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
SHAW, J., concur.
/jlr
-23- Case No. 7-08-04
ROGERS, J., concurring separately.
{¶39} I concur with the result reached by the majority based on the
circumstances of this case. However, I believe that it is error for a trial court to
fail to provide the jury with the definition of “deadly force” whenever the deadly
force self-defense instruction3 is given. I simply do not find it to be plain error in
this case.
{¶40} Appellant was charged with felonious assault, to wit: “* * * cause or
attempt to cause physical harm to another * * * by means of a deadly weapon.”
R.C. 2903.11(A)(2). Because the State must prove that the offender acted by
means of a deadly weapon, it goes without saying that the trial court must include
in the instructions a definition of “deadly weapon.”
{¶41} Although a knife was used in Appellant’s case, a knife is not, per se,
a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon is defined as “any instrument, device, or thing
capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon,
or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.” R.C. 2923.11(A). This is a two-part
definition: first requiring that the instrument have the capability of inflicting death;
and second, having been designed, adapted, possessed, carried, or used as a
weapon.
3 Ohio Jury Instructions has captioned this defense as: Self-defense against danger of death or great bodily harm. OJI-CR 421.19.
-24- Case No. 7-08-04
The general rule is that a folding knife is not a deadly weapon, unless and until some extrinsic fact or circumstance distinguishes it from the norm. Columbus v. Dawson (1986), 28 Ohio App.3d 45, 46, 501 N.E.2d 677 (a knife is not presumed to be a deadly weapon, even if it is concealed); State v. Cathel (1988), 127 Ohio App.3d 408, 412, 713 N.E.2d 52 (a knife is not considered “in and of itself” to be a deadly weapon under the statute); State v. Anderson (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 71, 72, 440 N.E.2d 814 (when an instrument is readily identifiable as one capable of inflicting death, such as a knife, proof of either additional element [designed/possessed, carried or used as a weapon] is nonetheless essential to sustain a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon).
State v. Port, 3d Dist. No. 9-05-39, 2006-Ohio-2783, ¶30. (Rogers, J., concurring
separately).
{¶42} If the jury concludes that the elements of the offense have been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it may then consider an affirmative defense of
self-defense. Here, the trial court gave the jury an instruction on self-defense that
included the term “deadly force”:
To establish a claim of self defense, the Defendant must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that, A, he was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the event in which injury occurred, and B, he had reasonable grounds to believe, and an honest belief, even if mistaken, that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only reasonable means of withdrawal from such danger was by the use of deadly force, and C, he had not violated any duty to withdraw to avoid the danger.
(Emphasis added.) (Trial Tr., Vol. II, p. 43). The term “deadly force” is defined
by statute as follows: “‘Deadly force’ means any force that carries a substantial
-25- Case No. 7-08-04
risk that it will proximately result in the death of any person.” R.C.
2901.01(A)(2). When a term used in a jury instruction is defined by statute, I feel
strongly that the statutory definition should be given to the jury. This is necessary
to insure that no inappropriate and prejudicial connotation is given to the term
during the jury’s deliberations.
{¶43} In considering the affirmative defense of self-defense in this case,
the jury was required to consider whether the alleged deadly weapon was used in a
manner that carried a substantial risk that it could proximately result in the death
of the victim. Reflection over this point should cause the jury to ponder whether
the knife was used in a manner which, in fact, created a substantial risk of causing
death, whether intentionally or not. It is not enough that the knife is determined to
be a deadly weapon, to wit: the knife was capable of causing death, and the knife
was used as a weapon. Rather, the question is whether, in this case, the “deadly
weapon” was used in a manner which created a substantial risk of death. If, as
Appellant has argued, the victim was wearing a heavy winter coat which was
unlikely to be penetrated by the relatively short blade of Appellant’s knife, the jury
could have concluded that the element of deadly force was not present. The
majority, and the three cases relied upon by the majority, seem to reach the factual
conclusion that any knife (or slashing with a broken bottle) constitutes deadly
force. However, factual conclusions should be left to the jury.
-26- Case No. 7-08-04
{¶44} Furthermore, jumping to the conclusion that every use of even a
small knife on another person’s body is deadly force ignores the requirement that
the use of the weapon creates “a substantial risk that it will proximately result in
the death” of the victim. R.C. 2901.01(A)(2). “Substantial risk” is defined as “a
strong possibility, as contrasted with a remote or significant possibility, that a
certain result may occur * * *.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(8). To emphasize how strong
that possibility must be in criminal law, Ohio Jury Instructions (OJI) has added the
term “even” in front of “significant”, so that the instruction currently in use by OJI
and recommended to Ohio judges reads: “‘Substantial risk’ means a strong
possibility, as contrasted with a remote or even a significant possibility, that a
certain result may occur * * *.” OJI-CR 503.11(A). Therefore, just because a
small knife could possibly cause death does not justify a reviewing court jumping
to the conclusion that its use always constitutes deadly force as defined by statute.
There remains a significant factual issue, best to be determined by a jury, as to
whether, in the case under consideration, there was a substantial risk of death.
{¶45} I would have preferred that each of these questions been answered
by the jury in Appellant’s case. However, there was no objection at trial to the
limited instructions given by the trial court. Therefore, we must determine
whether the error was plain error. Based on the facts related in this case, I cannot
-27- Case No. 7-08-04
say that the jury clearly lost its way and that, but for this error, the verdict would
probably have been different.
-28-