State v. Henry

2025 Ohio 5333

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Henry, 2025-Ohio-5333.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250200 TRIAL NO. C/24/CRB/18377 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY KELVIN HENRY, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 11/26/2025 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Henry, 2025-Ohio-5333.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250200 TRIAL NO. C/24/CRB/18377 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : OPINION KELVIN HENRY, :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 26, 2025

Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Jessica R. Moss, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. [Cite as State v. Henry, 2025-Ohio-5333.]

MOORE, Judge.

{¶1} On October 24, 2024, A.R. and A.G. were involved in a heated text

message exchange. Defendant-appellant Kelvin Henry was not involved in that

exchange. A.R. and her friend then went to A.G.’s home to coax A.G. to come outside

to fight. A.G., however, chose not to go outside because her son and younger brothers

were at home with her. In addition, she had just learned that she was pregnant.

Although Henry was not involved in the dispute between A.R. and A.G., he decided to

go with A.G. to A.R.’s house later that evening. Not surprisingly, an argument ensued

between A.R. and A.G. After hearing the commotion, A.R.’s younger brother, M.D.,

came outside and attempted to get A.R. and her friend to go back into their house.

Amid the chaos, Henry punched M.D. in the face.

{¶2} Henry appeals his conviction for assault, a first-degree misdemeanor

under R.C. 2903.13, arguing the trial court erred by rejecting his self-defense claim.

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶3} After being charged with assault, Henry filed a notice of self-defense. At

trial, there were varying versions of what led to M.D. getting punched in the face.

A. The Trial

A.R.’s Testimony

{¶4} A.R. testified that she was at home when she received a text that A.G.

was outside of her house, so A.R. and her friend went outside and began to argue with

A.G. A.R. confirmed that the argument was not with Henry, but with A.G. She stated

that Henry seemed to be trying to “deescalate” the situation and he had stated that

nobody was going to be fighting because A.G. was pregnant.

{¶5} A.R. testified that her 16-year-old brother, M.D., came outside and got OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

in between the two groups. A.R. stated that M.D. was wearing a basketball jersey and

“very loose” pajama pants that night. A.R. testified that, when Henry asked who M.D.

was, she told him that it was her brother and Henry had “nothing to worry about.” A.R.

recalled that M.D. was facing her and trying to get A.R. and her friend to go back into

the house. A.R. stated that Henry said, “[S]ince I can’t hit you all, I am going to hit

him,” then turned M.D. around and punched him three times in the face. A.R. testified

that M.D. went into the house and, after their mother came outside, Henry and A.G.

left.

M.D.’s Testimony

{¶6} M.D. testified that he was awakened by the sound of his sisters 1 yelling

outside, and when he went outside, he saw Henry and A.G. arguing with A.R. “down

the hill” on the property. M.D. stated that he was concerned because he saw “dudes”

“kind of being aggressive” and “walking up” on his sisters so he got in between the two

groups. M.D. explained that was facing his sisters with his back to Henry and A.G., and

his arms were held out in the shape of a “T” “kind of pushing [his sisters] back” trying

to get them to go back into the house. M.D. testified that he never approached Henry

or A.G. or attempted to strike either of them.

{¶7} According to M.D., he was walking away “halfway up the hill” when

Henry turned him around and punched him once in the face with a closed fist. M.D.

testified that he became disoriented and fell to the ground, he felt pain, and his eye

was bleeding and swelled shut. M.D. testified that he then went into his house to tell

his parents what had happened. M.D. went to the hospital to have his injuries assessed.

1 While A.R. referred to the other female as a “girlfriend,” M.D. referred to both as his “sisters.”

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Officer Adam Mackay’s Testimony

{¶8} Officer Mackay, with the Colerain police, recalled that when he

responded to the scene, M.D. was wearing a T-shirt and either shorts or pants, but his

clothing was not “bulky.” Officer Mackay testified that M.D.’s mother reported that

she went outside to speak to Henry after M.D. was punched, and Henry told her that

he punched M.D. because he felt intimidated by him. According to Officer Mackay,

A.R. never informed him that Henry stated that he would hit M.D. since he could not

hit A.R. and the other female.

{¶9} Officer Mackay testified that Henry told him over the phone that he

punched M.D. because he felt threatened, but Henry hung up when Officer Mackay

suggested that he turn himself in, claiming that he was “taking the rap for somebody

else.” Officer Mackay stated that Henry called back about 45 minutes later stating that

he acted in self-defense because M.D.’s hands were in his pocket and Henry believed

that he may have had a weapon. Officer Mackay testified that Henry did not describe

any weapon that M.D. may have had, only that M.D. “had his hands in his pocket.”

A.G.’s Testimony

{¶10} A.G. testified that, after A.R. left her house, A.R. continued to threaten

her via phone calls and messages, stating that she would harm A.G., her son, and her

unborn child. A.G. explained that Henry came to her house later that evening, then

they went to A.R.’s house together.2 A.G. testified that Henry told A.R. that A.G. was

not there to fight and Henry was there to help to end the dispute, but she and A.R.

began to argue.

{¶11} A.G. testified that M.D. came outside and was “kind of walking back and

2 A.R. testified that an unidentified male drove Henry and A.G. to A.R.’s house.

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

forth” behind A.R., but then M.D. “got in front” of A.R. and her friend as the women

“stepp[ed] closer” to A.G. and Henry. A.G. stated that M.D.’s hands appeared to be

“halfway” in the waistband of his pants as if he were “holding something there” but

“that’s just all [she] could really see from where she was sitting [in the car].”

{¶12} According to A.G., M.D. came closer to Henry, so Henry told him to

“back up.” A.G. testified that M.D. “took his hand out and kind of like stepped forward

like he was stepping towards [Henry].” A.G. stated that Henry punched M.D. in the

face once and caused him to fall to the ground, but offered to M.D. up help, saying, “I

don’t play about my life,” and asked M.D. if he was okay.

The Trial Court Finds Henry Guilty of Assault

{¶13} After hearing all the testimony, the trial court stated that it did not

believe A.R.’s testimony, and that many of the witnesses were not credible. The trial

court concluded that A.R. was at fault for starting the affray. It stated, “What is left is

an innocent person walked up and somebody hit him. And so based on that, the finding

is guilty.” The trial court sentenced Henry to 180 days in jail but suspended those days,

remitted court costs, and placed Henry on probation for six months.

{¶14} This appeal followed.

II. Analysis

{¶15} Henry was convicted of assault, which is governed by R.C. 2903.13(A).

The statute provides, “No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical

harm to another or to another’s unborn.” Id. Both parties acknowledge that the law

does not permit a person to provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter, then

claim self-defense. See State v. Fields, 2025-Ohio-2248, ¶ 21 (1st Dist.).

{¶16} On appeal, Henry argues in his sole assignment of error that the court

erred by rejecting his self-defense claim because he met his initial burden of

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

production under R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) by presenting evidence that tended to show that

he acted in self-defense and did not violate any duty to retreat under R.C. 2901.09(B).

He asserts that the State did not disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in

self-defense.

{¶17} The State responds that the trial court considered Henry’s self-defense

claim on its merits and concluded that Henry presented adequate evidence to meet his

initial burden of production under R.C. 2901.05(B)(1). The State asserts that,

therefore, the guilty verdict is an indication that the State disproved at least one of the

elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A. Standard of Review

1. Defendant’s Initial Burden of Production

{¶18} To establish that physical force was used in self-defense, a defendant

has the initial burden of producing legally sufficient evidence to show, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that (1) he was not at fault in causing the affray, (2) he

had a reasonable belief of imminent danger of which the only means of escape was the

use of force, and (3) he had no duty to retreat. State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶

14; see R.C. 2901.05. The reference in R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) to a defendant’s initial

burden to produce “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 evidence. Messenger at ¶ 22. A reviewing court must

construe the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant to determine whether

the evidence—and any reasonable inferences about that evidence—would allow the

trial court to find that all the elements of self-defense had been met. Id. at ¶ 25.

2. Ohio’s “Stand Your Ground” Law

{¶19} R.C. 2901.09(B)—Ohio’s “Stand Your Ground” law—provides, “a person

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense . . . if that person is in a place

in which the person lawfully has a right to be.” State v. Warth, 2023-Ohio-3641, ¶ 30

(1st Dist.). The Ohio Supreme Court has stated, “And a new division, (C), added: ‘A

[fact finder] shall not consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining

whether or not a person who used force in self-defense . . . reasonably believed that

the force was necessary to prevent injury, loss, or risk to life or safety.’” State v. Miree,

2024-Ohio-5714, ¶ 8; R.C. 2901.09(C). In Warth, this court echoed the Ohio Supreme

Court’s conclusion and further concluded:

But R.C. 2901.09(C) is not an absolute prohibition on introducing

evidence involving the possibility of retreat. Rather, the statute only

prohibits fact finders from considering evidence involving the

possibility of retreat to determine whether the defendant’s belief that

force was necessary was reasonable. Fact finders may, however,

consider retreat evidence to determine who was at fault in creating the

situation leading to the affray.

(Emphasis added.) Warth at ¶ 31, citing State v. Hughkeith, 2023-Ohio-1217, ¶ 88 (8th

Dist.) (“There is no language in the amended statute to suggest a fact finder is

precluded from considering whether the defendant was the initial aggressor or

whether the defendant attempted to withdraw from the situation when determining

whether the defendant was at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray.

The narrow language of the amended statute does not place on fact finders express

restrictions on consideration of fault.”).

3. The State’s Burden of Persuasion

{¶20} If a defendant meets his initial burden, the State then bears the burden

of persuasion to disprove at least one of the elements of self-defense beyond a

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

reasonable doubt. (Emphasis added.) State v. Shinholster, 2024-Ohio-1606, ¶ 16 (1st

Dist.); see R.C. 2901.05(B)(1). The State must, therefore, convince the fact finder to

view the facts in a light most favorable to it. Id. “‘Proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ is

proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon

it in the most important of the person’s own affairs.” R.C. 2901.05(E).

{¶21} A reviewing court applies the manifest-weight standard here.

Shinholster at ¶ 17. To conclude that the fact finder’s adjudication of conflicting

evidence was against the manifest weight of the evidence—which we reserve for only

the most exceptional circumstances—this court must find that the fact finder

disregarded or overlooked compelling evidence that weighed against conviction. State

v. Gibson, 2023-Ohio-1640, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d

380, 387-388 (1997). We accordingly sit as a “thirteenth juror” in this respect. Id.

4. The Trial Court was Entitled to Believe M.D.’s Version of Events

{¶22} A fact finder is in the best position to judge the credibility of the

witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence presented. State v. Warner, 2024-

Ohio-1949, ¶ 20 (1st Dist.). The trial court, therefore, was entitled to weigh the

evidence, consider the motivations of the witnesses, and choose to believe all, part, or

none of the testimony offered. Thompkins at 387. When conflicting evidence is

presented at trial, a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence

simply because the fact finder believed the prosecution’s testimonial evidence. State

v. McDaniel, 2021-Ohio-724, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.).

{¶23} During oral argument, Henry argued that the trial court apparently

found that he was an innocent party in the affray because the court stated that Henry

and M.D. were “two innocent people” and, therefore, the State failed to disprove any

elements of self-defense. Counsel also argued this statement indicates that the trial

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

court must have found portions of M.D.’s testimony incredible. We disagree, and

conclude that the trial court’s statement referred to the fact that M.D. and Henry were

not a part of the initial disagreement between A.R. and A.G., not the moment when

Henry punched M.D.

a. The Trial Court Found that Henry was not Provoked

{¶24} In his merit brief, Henry asserts that the trial court recognized Henry’s

belief that he was provoked, but it did not make an explicit finding as to his self-

defense claim. The State, however, asserts that it proved that Henry was not provoked,

and the trial court properly rejected Henry’s self-defense claim. The State’s assertion

has merit.

{¶25} Notwithstanding Henry’s intentions, he chose to go with A.G. to A.R.’s

home knowing that A.R. wanted to fight A.G. Henry also chose to continue to remain

in the thick of things as the argument escalated. As A.G. testified, A.R. and her friend

were not backing down, which prompted M.D. to get in front of them as they stepped

closer to A.G. and Henry. A.G. testified that M.D.’s hands were “halfway” in the

waistband of his pants, “as if” he was holding “something” there, and she could not be

certain what he could be holding from where she was sitting in the car. The trial court

was entitled to disbelieve the suggestion that M.D. was holding a weapon or that he

moved in any manner that would be perceived by an objectively reasonable person as

threatening.

{¶26} The trial court was entitled to, instead, believe that M.D. was outside

attempting to prevent A.R. and her friend from fighting, that M.D. never directly

engaged Henry or A.G., and that M.D. had his back turned to Henry and A.G. while he

attempted to get A.R. and her friend to go back into the house. The trial court could

have also concluded that M.D. was walking away and Henry turned him around and

10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

punched him in the face. Testimonial evidence further suggests that M.D. was wearing

pajama pants, which were not bulky as Henry claimed. As noted by the trial court, “ . .

. under the self-defense thing . . . [Henry] did come to the scene and . . . he thought

there was provocation, but I’m not sure that it is clearly shown.” As we must give

deference to the trial court’s determination of credibility of the witnesses, Henry failed

to show that he was provoked when he punched M.D.

b. Use of Force Requires an Objectively-Reasonable Fear of Harm or Injury

{¶27} Henry also argues that he did not use more force than reasonable. The

reasonableness of a defendant’s actions when acting in self-defense involves both a

subjective and objective component. State v. Hunt, 2023-Ohio-1977, ¶ 49 (8th Dist.),

citing State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997). With respect to the objective

component, Thomas held that the fact finder must consider “all of the defendant’s

particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history,

and conditions at the time of the attack” to determine whether he reasonably believed

that he was in imminent danger when he acted in self-defense. Thomas at 330. If this

objective standard is met, the fact finder must then determine if the defendant

subjectively had an honest belief, even if mistaken, that he or she was in imminent

danger of death or serious injury.

{¶28} While the record shows that Henry met his initial burden of production

on his self-defense claim, the court apparently concluded that using any force against

M.D. was unreasonable, which is supported by the record evidence. Accordingly, we

overrule Henry’s sole assignment of error.

III. Conclusion

{¶29} The trial court’s guilty finding indicates the State met its burden of

showing that Henry was not provoked and disproved Henry’s self-defense claim

11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented at trial that demonstrated Henry’s

knowledge (or lack thereof), along with the circumstances, history, and conditions at

the time of the attack would not cause a reasonably objective person to believe that

Henry was in imminent danger. Henry cannot reconcile his assertion that the trial

court disbelieved parts of M.D.’s testimony with the trial court’s statement that it was

not convinced that Henry proved that he was provoked to punch M.D. Moreover, the

trial court stated that M.D. was an innocent person who “walked up and someone hit

him.” It did not disregard or overlook compelling evidence that weighed against

Henry’s conviction. We, therefore, overrule Henry’s assignment of error and affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

KINSLEY, P.J., and NESTOR, J., concur.