concluding that a defendant’s failure to object to a jury instruction at trial forecloses appellate review of the instruction absent plain error given Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a defendant’s failure to object to a jury instruction at trial forecloses appellate review of the instruction absent plain error given Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule
- finding failure to object to a jury instruction at trial, as required by Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule, forecloses appellate review of the instruction absent plain error
- explaining that the court may notice plain error on its own motion or at the request of counsel
- Where examination of record in homicide prosecution disclosed that defense counsel aggressively cross-examined eyewitness to homicide and that such examination, among other things, elicited witness's admission that at time of trial he was incarcerated and had been convicted of receiving stolen property, even if trial court erred in not allowing cross-examination of such witness as to whether he had pending motion for shock probation, no material prejudice was demonstrated by record and any error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Parrino, J.,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree that the trial court’s charge imposing the burden of proving self-defénse on appellant was erroneous and not in conformity with B. C. 2901.05(A). See State v. Robinson *100 (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 103 , 351 N. E. 2d 88 ; State v. Humphries (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 95 , 364 N. E. 2d 1354 .
Under our holding in State v. Robinson, supra, where a defendant has asserted a claim of self-defense, the defendant has only the burden of going forward with the evidence of a quality and nature sufficient to raise that defense, and does not have the burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Court of Appeals in the instant cause held that appellant failed to meet the initial burden placed on him by State v. Robinson, supra. I agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. Appellant specifically testified that he did not intend to shoot or kill the victim or his companion. This state of mind rebutted rather than supported the theory that he was acting in self-defense. State v. Champion (1924), 109 Ohio St. 281 , 142 N. E. 141 .
Under the facts of this case, appellant having failed to meet the threshold burden imposed upon him by State v. Robinson, supra, I must conclude that the court’s charge on self-defense constitutes harmless error.
For these reasons I also affirm.