Does Ohio’s self defense law strengthen protections for individuals or hinder prosecutors? Editorial Board Roundtable

In 2018, House Bill 228, which sought to shift the burden of proof from the shooter to prosecutors in gun violence self-defense claims, drew virtually unanimous opposition from police, prosecutors and other law enforcement groups, mayors and municipal organizations.

Under the law, the shooter must only present evidence that “tends to support” a self-defense claim.

HB 228 passed the Ohio House and Senate by large margins and mostly party-line votes. After then-Gov. John Kasich vetoed the bill, co-sponsored by then-Rep. Sarah LaTourette of Geauga County, the legislature overrode his veto by even larger margins than the bill’s original vote. Cleveland’s then-state Rep. Bill Patmon, a Democrat, was among those voting for the veto override.

The bill, which took effect in 2019, when combined with other loosened gun laws, including the end to concealed-carry licensure requirements and a widened “stand your ground” law, have begun to have an impact. In Cuyahoga County, as we noted in a recent editorial, quoting from a story by cleveland.com’s John H. Tucker, “the new laws have dissuaded the prosecutor’s office from seeking indictments in about 12 to 15 homicide cases each year,” Tucker reported, citing Saleh Awadallah, who oversees the county prosecutor office’s homicide investigations.

Now, a case tied to the self-defense law, in which a Cincinnati cab driver convicted of felonious assault for shooting an inebriated passenger through the neck after a dispute over fares, has made its way to the Ohio Supreme Court. The cab driver asserts his conviction should be thrown out because his self-defense claim wasn’t properly considered at trial and prosecutors didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.

The state high court agreed to hear the case after a panel of the 12th District Ohio Court of Appeals last year unanimously ruled against the cab driver.

So, what does our Editorial Board Roundtable think? Does HB 228 upend usual criminal jurisprudence by allowing shooters to assert specious self-defense claims? Should Ohio revisit and repeal this law?

Ted Diadiun, columnist:

So, who decides that a self-defense claim is “specious?” I’d say that’s up to the jury, after considering evidence from both sides on either self-defense or assault. And the burden of proof should be on the prosecution, not the defendant. Innocent until proven guilty – isn’t that the way it works? There’s no reason to change this law.

Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board member:

In a December 27, 2018, cleveland.com story, Laura Hancock reported that, before HB 228′s passage, Ohio was the only state requiring shooters to prove self-defense claims. And, in Cuyahoga County, HB 228 seemingly dissuades indictments in only 12 to 15 cases annually. Absent evidence of widespread misuse, keep HB 228. It strengthens Ohioans’ self-defense rights.

Eric Foster, columnist:

HB 228 is a bad law, but it’s not going anywhere. My sense is the Ohio Supreme Court took this case to tell judges that they should err on the side of allowing defendants to present their self-defense claims to the jury. If so, that makes some sense. Why give defendants an appealable issue?

Lisa Garvin, editorial board member:

Shifting the burden of proof to prosecutors in self-defense cases is a big mistake that emboldens people to shoot first and ask questions later, with increasingly tragic consequences. Victims often don’t survive to tell their side of the story, so juries only have the shooter’s perception of danger. It’s the defendant’s job to prove it.

Victor Ruiz, editorial board member

There are too many examples of “stand your ground gone wrong” where innocent lives are lost. Not every situation justifies pulling out a gun, so gun owners must be expected to make good decisions. If this law is not repealed, any of us stand the risk of losing our lives over the simplest disagreement.

Thomas Suddes, editorial writer

Yes, the General Assembly needs to revisit and if necessary, revise this law, which obviously has contributed to confusion in the criminal courts — the last thing that either prosecutors or defense lawyers need in cases such as this.

Elizabeth Sullivan, opinion director

The legislature should repeal not just HB 128, but all the other ill-considered gun laws it passed in recent years despite warnings from law enforcement about their negative implications for law and order.

Have something to say about this topic?

* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments on this editorial board roundtable to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com.