# State v. Long

> Ohio Supreme Court · February 15, 1978 · 53 Ohio St. 2d 91

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756213

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Long
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 15, 1978
- **Citations:** 53 Ohio St. 2d 91; 7 Ohio Op. 3d 178; 372 N.E.2d 804; 1978 Ohio LEXIS 499
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parrino
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Eighth, Herbert, Locher, Neux, Parrino, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 3,820 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756213

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756213. Public record. Not legal advice.