[Cite as State v. Carter,
2024-Ohio-5031.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1130
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202201827
v.
Jadiah Carter DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 18, 2024
…
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
…
SULEK, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jadiah Carter, appeals from the April 27, 2023 judgment of the
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one count of aggravated
murder, one count of attempted murder, one count of murder, and two counts of felonious
assault, with firearm specifications on each of the above counts, as well as one count of
discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises. Carter raises a single assignment
of error challenging his conviction as against the manifest weight of the evidence. For
the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On May 19, 2022, the Lucas County Grand Jury indicted Carter on one
count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(C) and (G), an unclassified
offense (count 1); one count of attempt to commit murder in violation of R.C. 2923.02
and 2903.02(A), a first-degree felony (count 2); one count of murder in violation of R.C.
2903.02(B) and 2929.02, an unclassified offense (count 3); two counts of felonious
assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D), a second-degree felony (counts 4 and
5); and one count of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises in violation of
R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) and (C)(4), a first-degree felony (count 6). Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
each had the following two firearm specifications: discharge of a firearm from a motor
vehicle under R.C. 2941.146(A), (B), and (D); and displaying, brandishing, indicating
possession of, or using a firearm under R.C. 2941.145(A), (B), (C), and (F).
{¶ 3} The charges stemmed from an apparent road-rage incident between Carter
and J.H. that resulted in the death of J.H.’s seven-month-old baby. On April 27, 2022,
J.H. was tailgating Carter as they both drove westbound on Hillcrest Avenue in Toledo.
After the two vehicles reached the intersection of Hillcrest and Jackman, Carter fired
multiple gunshots at J.H.’s vehicle, hitting J.H.’s baby, who was in her car seat in the
back of J.H.’s vehicle, as well as grazing J.H.’s back.
2.
{¶ 4} Carter pleaded not guilty to the charges, and he filed a notice of self-defense.
At the jury trial, which spanned three days, the state presented the testimony of several
witnesses, including J.H. and members of the Toledo Police Department. Carter testified
on his own behalf, asserting that he acted in self-defense. The testimony and evidence
presented at trial relating to Carter’s claim of self-defense is summarized below.
J.H.’s Testimony
{¶ 5} On April 27, 2022, J.H. left his mother’s house with his seven-month-old
daughter, D.H., to go to a friend’s house. After leaving his friend’s house, J.H., who was
driving a white SUV with his daughter buckled into a car seat in the passenger side of the
vehicle’s backseat, drove south on Homewood Avenue in Toledo, intending to return to
his mother’s house on North Cove Boulevard. On its south side, Homewood terminates
at Hillcrest Avenue, almost directly in front of Willys Park. J.H. turned right onto
Hillcrest, heading west toward Jackman Road on a direct route to his mother’s house.
{¶ 6} Another vehicle—the driver of which was later identified as Carter—was
also driving westbound on Hillcrest. Most of Hillcrest has only two lanes, an eastbound
lane and a westbound lane, so the two vehicles were traveling in the single westbound
lane. J.H. was driving behind Carter. Carter was driving more slowly than J.H. When
J.H. caught up with Carter, he began tailgating him. Carter brake-checked J.H. and
slowed down even further. J.H. testified that Carter never put on his blinker, attempted to
let J.H. pass, or took any other evasive maneuvers.
3.
{¶ 7} Near the intersection of Hillcrest and Jackman, the westbound lane of
Hillcrest expands into two lanes, a left turn lane and a right turn lane. Carter went into
the right turn lane. J.H. entered the left lane to continue his direct route to his mother’s
house. As J.H. approached the intersection, the traffic light was yellow and turning red.
J.H. entered the intersection, considering running the red light, but could not do so due to
traffic on Jackman. Accordingly, J.H. reversed out of the intersection to avoid being hit
by vehicles traveling on Jackman.
{¶ 8} J.H. put his arm up as he reversed the vehicle. He stated that he did not
point at or otherwise threaten Carter. He saw Carter—whom J.H. had never seen before
that moment—smiling at him, though they did not speak to each other. J.H., who did not
have a weapon on his person or in his vehicle, then heard several gunshots and felt a
burning where one of the bullets hit his back. J.H. immediately headed straight to Toledo
Hospital, which was only a few minutes’ drive away. As he drove to the hospital, J.H.
realized that his baby daughter had been hit when he saw blood on her.
{¶ 9} As soon as J.H. arrived at the hospital, he and his daughter were placed in
adjoining rooms. While the police were questioning J.H., hospital staff informed him
that D.H. died. J.H. was also questioned approximately three hours later at Toledo Police
headquarters, and then again on April 29 and May 3, 2022.
4.
{¶ 10} J.H. was initially resistant to police questioning, wanting to be with his
family, and he was very emotional.1 J.H. also wanted to prevent the police from finding
the shooter before he did, testifying that he wanted to take revenge against the shooter
himself without police involvement because he believed in street justice. Accordingly, he
testified that his answers to the police initially involved a mixture of accurate, mistaken,
and deliberately misleading statements. He told the police that the other vehicle was a
light blue four-door car, possibly a Honda. J.H. admitted that he told the police that the
other vehicle came up behind him fast, and that the two vehicles were swerving in lanes.
He told another police officer that he was driving behind the other vehicle, the other
driver was driving slow like an old person, and the other driver brake-checked J.H.
{¶ 11} J.H. also told officers that he had cracked the window near D.H.’s seat, as
was his habit to give his baby fresh air. At the hospital, the officers pointed out that the
passenger front window was open, but J.H. could not remember rolling the window
down. J.H. explained during his testimony that he was not really worried about how or
why the window came to be rolled down.
1
During his trial testimony, J.H. continued to be emotional and resistant to the state’s
involvement in this case, and after multiple emotional outbursts, the trial court found J.H.
to be a hostile witness pursuant to Evid.R. 611 and permitted the state to ask leading
questions.
5.
Police Interviews of J.H. at the Hospital
{¶ 12} Toledo Police Officer Anthony Wrozek testified that he responded to a 911
call regarding two gunshot victims at Toledo Hospital. As he arrived, Officer Wrozek
saw a white Dodge Nitro parked in front of the emergency room entrance. He noted that
the vehicle’s passenger side had approximately eight bullet holes and the rear passenger
window was shot out. When Officer Wrozek encountered J.H., J.H. appeared distraught.
He was pacing and pleading with the police, crying and even yelling at times. Officer
Wrozek also described the graze wound on J.H.’s back, noting that the wound was
approximately eight inches long and between J.H.’s shoulder blades.
{¶ 13} Officer Wrozek said that J.H. had trouble describing the location where the
shooting occurred. J.H. initially said he was driving on Willys, and Officer Wrozek
thought J.H. meant Willys Parkway, a street in the same neighborhood as Hillcrest and
Homewood, but the police eventually realized that J.H. was referring to Willys Park—the
park across from the intersection of Homewood and Hillcrest—and that the shooting
actually occurred on Hillcrest and Jackman.
{¶ 14} J.H. also initially told Officer Wrozek that the shooter was in a vehicle
behind him driving too closely. He later changed his story, however, saying that the
shooter’s car was in front of his, the shooter was driving very slowly, and J.H. was
probably following too closely. After the first 20 minutes or so of the police’s initial
encounter with J.H., J.H.’s description about which car was in front remained
6.
consistent—he confirmed that he had been the one tailgating the shooter and not the other
way around as he initially claimed.
{¶ 15} Throughout all the police questioning, J.H. was consistent about what
happened when the two cars came to the intersection at the traffic light at Jackman. J.H.
said he drove too far into the intersection over the stop line when the light was red, and
he had to reverse to avoid oncoming traffic. J.H. said the shooter opened fire at J.H.’s
vehicle when he reversed. J.H. told Officer Wrozek that he leaned forward to avoid the
shots, and he also noticed that his daughter’s body jumped. J.H. also said that he then
immediately completed his turn onto Jackman, heading toward Toledo Hospital, and the
other vehicle turned in the opposite direction.
{¶ 16} Officer Wrozek testified that J.H. said that he did not know the shooter and
the shooter was wearing a green Nike athletic jacket and driving a light blue vehicle. J.H.
said that the shooter appeared to be alone in his vehicle. Other police officers testified
similarly, and the state also played video from police body cameras, confirming police
testimony about J.H.’s statements and demeanor.
Investigation of J.H.’s Vehicle
{¶ 17} Toledo Police Detective Javier Ramirez, who worked with the Crime Scene
Unit, testified about his investigation of J.H.’s vehicle. Detective Ramirez described a
bullet defect in the driver’s window as well as penetrating defects in both the passenger
front and rear doors, for a total of approximately eight defects in the sheet metal.
Detective Ramirez analyzed the trajectory of the bullets and determined that at least two
7.
of the bullets penetrated the rear passenger door immediately next to D.H.’s car seat, and
he found a bullet defect in the seatbelt in D.H.’s car seat.
{¶ 18} Detective Ramirez explained that when a semi-automatic weapon is fired,
the casings from the bullet are ejected from the gun. Detective Ramirez testified that no
shell casings or weapons were found in J.H.’s vehicle, and no weapon of any kind was
located in the vehicle.
Neighborhood Videos of J.H.’s Route
{¶ 19} Detective Leonard Beck, who works with the Video Unit of the Toledo
Police Department, testified that he was tasked with locating videos from security and
doorbell cameras of residences bordering J.H.’s route from the evening of the shooting.
Police were able to assemble four home security videos into one timeline showing J.H.
driving along Homewood and Hillcrest in the minutes before the shooting.
{¶ 20} In the timeline video, which was played at trial and for which both
Detective Beck and Toledo Police Detective Gary Bunting provided commentary, a silver
sedan is seen driving northbound on Homecrest toward Berdan Avenue with its trunk
ajar. Approximately nine minutes later, the sedan is seen driving in the opposite
direction, southbound, on Homecrest toward Hillcrest, this time with its trunk closed.
Shortly thereafter, J.H.’s white Dodge Nitro is seen driving quickly southbound on
Homecrest. Approximately a minute after that, the two vehicles are seen driving
westbound on Hillcrest near Watson. J.H. drives closely behind the sedan, eventually
clearly tailgating. At one point, the driver of the silver sedan appears to “brake check”
8.
the J.H.—the sedan’s brake lights come on quickly followed by J.H.’s brake lights. The
intersection of Hillcrest and Watson is approximately five or six blocks from the
intersection of Hillcrest and Jackman, and the timeline video ends before the vehicles
reached that intersection. At no point during the video does either vehicle attempt to pull
over, put on a blinker, or swerve. The entire distance of Hillcrest between Homewood
and Jackman is about half a mile, with approximately 20 houses and their yards lining the
street in that section, but the video shows only a few blocks of the vehicles’ path on
Hillcrest.
{¶ 21} Detective Bunting provided further information about the intersection of
Jackman and Hillcrest. As J.H. testified, westbound Hillcrest expands into two lanes as it
approaches Jackman. Vehicles use the left lane to turn southbound onto Jackman—
which would be the direction of J.H.’s mother’s home and Toledo Hospital—and the
right lane to turn northbound onto Jackman toward Berdan. Notably, right turns on red
are permitted in the right lane.
{¶ 22} Based on their investigation of the scene of the shooting, J.H.’s description
of the shooter’s location relative to his vehicle was consistent with the intersection of
Jackman and Hillcrest as well as the location of the bullet holes in J.H.’s passenger door.
Police Interview of Carter
{¶ 23} Sergeant Roy Kennedy of the Toledo Police Department testified that the
police did not identify Carter as a suspect in the shooting for several days after it
9.
occurred. No one called the police to turn themselves in, and although the silver sedan
was seen on neighborhood home security videos, the license plate was not visible.
{¶ 24} On May 3, 2022, six days after the shooting, police identified Carter as the
driver of the silver sedan involved in the shooting using a police camera system located at
intersections throughout Toledo. Detective Bunting and Sergeant Kennedy interviewed
Carter, and Detective Bunting testified about the interview in conjunction with a video of
the interview.
{¶ 25} According to Detective Bunting, Carter initially denied driving on Hillcrest
or having any interaction with a white SUV on the evening of the shooting, and he
alleged that he was being set up. Carter only admitted to seeing J.H.’s vehicle after the
police told him they had several videos of J.H.’s vehicle tailgating Carter’s vehicle.
{¶ 26} After additional police questioning, Carter eventually admitted to shooting
at J.H.’s vehicle, giving differing explanations for his actions. Carter attributed the
shooting to J.H.’s driving, complaining that J.H. was driving “stupid” and was too close
to his bumper. Carter also said that when J.H. reached his hand back behind his front
passenger seat, J.H. pointed at Carter, so Carter thought if he waited to shoot, then J.H.
would kill him first. Carter claimed that J.H. was smiling at him, which he interpreted as
a threat. Carter claimed he could see J.H. pointing and smiling through J.H.’s closed rear
window, which was tinted dark. Carter admitted, however, that he never saw J.H. with a
gun, explaining that he did not want to wait to find out if J.H. had a gun.
10.
{¶ 27} Later, Carter claimed that this was a case of mistaken identity, and he did
not shoot J.H. He threatened to sue the police as a result.
{¶ 28} When asked what happened to his gun, Carter said that he pawned the gun
at a store on Lewis Avenue in Toledo. Although police investigated all gun transactions
at all the pawn stores or other establishments that could buy a gun on or near Lewis
Avenue, they could not find any transactions involving Carter and the type of the gun that
Carter said he used in the shooting.
Carter’s Firearm Training
{¶ 29} Next, a retired Toledo Police Officer, David Vnuck, testified that he
formerly owned a business that specialized in concealed carry classes, and Carter took a
concealed carry class from him. In that class, Vnuck taught his students that before
shooting, safe gun handling requires a shooter to look both at the target and what is
behind the target, explaining that a shooter is responsible for whatever the bullet hits until
it is done traveling. Vnuck also instructed his classes that shooting a gun in self-defense
requires the shooter to be in fear of the shooter’s life or of serious bodily harm, and the
shooter may be held criminally or civilly liable for shooting without justification.
Finally, Vnuck taught his students that if they shot someone else in self-defense, the
students should secure their weapon, make a police report, call an attorney, and explain to
the police why they felt the use of the gun was necessary. Vnuck noted that there may
not always be a legal requirement to call the police, but that he taught his students to do
so.
11.
Carter’s Testimony
{¶ 30} Carter testified at length about his personal history with gun violence. He
testified that his mother was killed by gun violence. Carter said that in his neighborhood,
he hears gunfire daily. According to Carter, his home has been shot up twice, once
shortly after his mother was killed and a second time a few weeks later. Carter said that
he had been shot in the leg in 2016 while he and his girlfriend were driving down a side
street near Lagrange in North Toledo. Carter said he went to the hospital afterward and
was interviewed by the police, but he refused to give them any information about the
shooting. On another instance in 2016, Carter said he was shot in the shoulder when he
was riding in a car with his uncle near Central and Lagrange and another car suddenly
appeared from a side street and began tailgating them. In 2017, while leaving a house
party near Carter’s residence, Carter was shot in the leg again. Again, Carter did not give
the police any details about the shootings. Although the hospital generally must report all
gunshot wounds to the police, Carter was not surprised that only one police report
identified Carter as a gunshot victim.
{¶ 31} Carter testified that he got a concealed carry permit in 2021, shortly after
he was old enough to do so, because of the danger surrounding Carter’s neighborhood.
However, Carter never went through any stress combat course or any other courses on
how to handle quick decisions about whether to shoot.
{¶ 32} Carter then testified about the events on the day of the shooting. That
evening, he went to his girlfriend’s house. After Carter left her house, he drove
12.
southbound on Homewood, and when he reached the stop sign at Hillcrest, he paused for
a bit to find a song to play on his phone. He noticed he was blocking another vehicle that
had pulled up behind him at the stop sign, so Carter put on his blinker and turned right
onto Hillcrest. Carter testified that after passing approximately two houses, he partially
pulled over onto the side of Hillcrest, which was a gravel area, to let the other car pass
him and so he could finish choosing his song. Carter then noticed that the other car was
stopped in the middle of the street, directly behind him and close to his bumper. Carter
said he felt nervous and his stomach was twisting, so he sped up and then pulled off the
road again. Again, the driver of the other car did not go around Carter, so he decided to
drive forward. Carter saw the other car tailgating him and swerving as he did so.
Accordingly, Carter, who was feeling scared that something bad was going to happen,
sped up to get the other vehicle away from his bumper. Carter also said he tapped his
brakes to get the other vehicle to back up, but that did not work, so Carter just kept
speeding up.
{¶ 33} As Carter approached the light at Hillcrest and Jackman, the light was
green, and Carter initially got into the left lane and put his left turn signal on. Then the
light turned yellow, so Carter jerked over to the right lane, put on his right turn signal,
and slammed on his brakes just short of the white line. Carter testified that he froze at
that moment and watched to see what the other vehicle would do.
{¶ 34} Carter saw the other vehicle pass him and go into the left lane, where the
vehicle stopped before the white line. Carter saw the other vehicle begin to reverse
13.
slowly and then start speeding as he reversed. The back passenger window then cracked
open, and Carter saw the driver “cheesing,” which he described as smiling as if the
person is up to something. He testified that in the past he saw someone walk into a party
and start cheesing at another person before shooting that person. Carter saw the other
driver reach down to shift and then swing his arm back across the passenger seat, and
then the passenger window rolled down. Carter testified that all this happened very
quickly. As soon as Carter saw the other driver put his arm up and roll his window down,
Carter grabbed his gun out of the holster in his pants and started shooting. After Carter
was done shooting, the other vehicle sat there for a moment, then turned left onto
Jackman, and Carter turned right onto Jackman.
{¶ 35} While Carter acknowledged learning in his concealed carry class that he
should call the police after shooting in self-defense, he stated that people in his
neighborhood generally do not talk to the police about shootings. Accordingly, Carter
did not contact the police.
{¶ 36} Carter testified that he only ever saw the driver in the vehicle, he did not
see a gun anywhere in the other vehicle, and he did not see a baby seat in the backseat.
Carter only learned about D.H.’s death a few days later after news about her death
became widespread on social media.
{¶ 37} Carter also testified that when the police pulled him over on May 3, 2022
and when they initially started questioning him about driving on Homewood, he had no
idea why. He could not explain why his testimony regarding the events leading to the
14.
shooting included several details that he did not mention during his police interview on
May 3. Carter also flatly denied that during his police interview he claimed that the
police had mistakenly identified him as the shooter or threatened to sue the police,
continuing to deny that he made the statements even though the video of his interview
was admitted into evidence.
{¶ 38} Finally, Carter could not explain why he got rid of the gun a few days after
the shooting. He continued to maintain that he sold it to a pawn shop on Lewis Avenue
despite the lack of a record evidencing the sale.
Jury Verdict
{¶ 39} After the parties rested, the trial court instructed the jury. These
instructions included the standard for self-defense, explaining that the state had the
burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense
in using deadly force. The court also gave the jury a consciousness of guilt instruction.
{¶ 40} After deliberations, the jury found Carter guilty on all counts.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 41} Carter asserts the following assignment of error for review:
{¶ 42} The jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence
presented at trial.
15.
III. Arguments of the Parties
{¶ 43} In support of his assignment of error, Carter asserts that the state did not
meet its burden in disproving beyond a reasonable doubt that Carter acted in self-defense.
Carter concedes that he used deadly force, but he alleges that he was permitted to use
deadly force under the circumstances. Specifically, Carter argues that J.H. created the
situation by tailgating him; Carter believed that J.H. was about to shoot him because J.H.
smiled at him while lifting his arm, reversing his vehicle, and rolling his window down;
and Carter had no duty to retreat because he was driving on a public roadway. Carter
also points to his own history with gun violence to further support his belief that J.H.
would shoot him.
{¶ 44} In response, the state argues that there was credible, competent evidence to
support a finding that Carter was at fault in creating the situation, either by brake-
checking J.H. and driving slowly down Hillcrest or by responding disproportionately to a
road-rage incident. The state contends that there was credible, competent evidence to
support a finding that Carter did not reasonably conclude that he was in imminent danger
of death or serious bodily harm. In support, the state points to the inconsistency between
Carter’s testimony regarding his fear of J.H. at trial and his statements to the police, that
Carter never saw J.H with a gun or any weapon and no weapon was found in J.H.’s
vehicle, the inconsistencies in Carter’s descriptions about what he was able to see inside
of J.H.’s vehicle immediately before the shooting, and Carter’s actions following the
shooting in leaving the scene without notifying the police and disposing of the weapon.
16.
IV. Law and Analysis
{¶ 45} “Self-defense is an affirmative defense—not an element of a crime.” State
v. Greer, 2023-Ohio-103, ¶ 33 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Messenger,
2022-Ohio-4562, ¶
24. Although the burden to establish an affirmative defense typically remains with the
defendant, R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) created a burden-shifting framework for self-defense.
Messenger at ¶ 25. The defendant bears the initial burden to present some evidence, if
believed by the jury, that would establish the defendant intentionally used force “to repel
force or escape force.” State v. Wilson,
2024-Ohio-776, ¶ 18, 25. “Once a defendant
presents any evidence ‘that tends to support that [he or she] used the force in self-
defense …,’ the state “must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person did
not use the force in self-defense….’” State v. Lane,
2023-Ohio-1305, ¶ 16 (6th Dist.),
quoting R.C. 2901.05(B)(1). Accordingly, the defendant bears the initial burden of
production, and then the state bears the burden of persuasion.
Id.
{¶ 46} On appeal, “a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of review applies
to the state’s burden of persuasion.” Messenger at ¶ 26. Under a manifest-weight
standard of review, “[t]he court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in
resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a
manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial
ordered.” State v. Lang,
2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ 220, quoting State v. Thompkins,
78 Ohio
St.3d 380, 387 (1997). “The discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised
17.
only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
conviction.”
Id., quoting
Thompkins at 387.
{¶ 47} A claim of self-defense using deadly force involves three elements. Lane
at ¶ 15, citing
Messenger at ¶ 14. “A person may use deadly force in self-defense where
he (1) was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) had a bona
fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only
means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and (3) did not violate
any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.”
Id. To overcome a defendant’s claim of self-
defense, the state need only disprove one element beyond a reasonable doubt. Maumee v.
Yeager,
2024-Ohio-858, ¶ 97 (6th Dist.). Here, the state conceded that Carter had no
duty to retreat, so only the first two elements of self-defense were at issue at trial.
{¶ 48} The second element of self-defense, that the defendant had a bona fide
belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only
means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force, involves both a
subjective and objective test. State v. Lathan, 2024-Ohio-2514, ¶ 77 (6th Dist.), quoting
State v. Thomas,
77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997). The factfinder must consider “the bona
fides of defendant’s belief, and reasonableness therefor, and whether, under the
circumstances, he exercised a careful and proper use of his own faculties.” State v.
Stevenson,
2018-Ohio-5140, ¶ 42 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Sheets,
115 Ohio St. 308,
310 (1926). Accordingly, the second element of self-defense generally requires the trier
18.
of fact to evaluate the defendant’s credibility. State v. Olsen,
2023-Ohio-2254, ¶ 57 (11th
Dist.), citing State v. Walker,
2021-Ohio-2037, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 49} An appellate court must “extend special deference to the fact-finder’s
credibility determinations given that it is the finder of fact who has the benefit of seeing
the witnesses testify, observing their facial expressions and body language, hearing their
voice inflections, and discerning qualities such as hesitancy, equivocation, and candor.”
State v. Fell, 2012-Ohio-616, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.). As such, “‘a conviction is not against the
manifest weight of the evidence because the trier of fact believed the state’s version of
events over the defendant’s version’ and rejected the defendant’s claim of self-defense.”
State v. Lawler,
2023-Ohio-3933, ¶ 33 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Bentley, 2023-Ohio-
1792, ¶ 24 (11th Dist.). See also State v. Walker,
2021-Ohio-3860, ¶ 73 (6th Dist.),
quoting
Thompkins at 386. Indeed, “[e]ven where a person asserting self-defense asserts
‘uncontroverted trial testimony’ in support of his or her defense, the trier of fact is still
free to accept or reject his or her version of events.” State v. Tuggle,
2023-Ohio-3965, ¶
63 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Olsen,
2023-Ohio-2254, ¶ 57 (11th Dist.).
{¶ 50} Here, the jury could have found that Carter’s actions were objectively
unreasonable and his testimony regarding his subjective fear lacked credibility. Carter
admitted that he never saw J.H. with a weapon. At most, therefore, J.H. tailgated Carter
and then reversed his vehicle with his window down while pointing and smiling at Carter.
Carter, in response, shot at J.H. eight times, fled the scene, and disposed of his weapon.
19.
{¶ 51} Even though Carter attempted to explain his overreaction by testifying
about his history as a victim of gun violence, the jury could find that Carter’s testimony
lacked credibility. Indeed, in addition to evaluating Carter’s testimony itself, the jury had
other evidence to support a finding that Carter was not credible, including the
inconsistent statements he gave the police, his denial of threatening to sue the police
despite video evidence of his statement, and his failure to provide a plausible explanation
of what happened to his gun. See State v. Tunstall, 2024-Ohio-2376, ¶ 23 (2nd Dist.)
(explaining that appellant’s initial denial of any knowledge of shooting at issue along
with other inconsistent statements during police questioning were a sufficient basis for a
reasonable juror to discredit appellant’s testimony claiming self-defense). Further,
Carter’s actions in disposing of the weapon demonstrate a consciousness of guilt, which
supports a jury’s rejection of self-defense. See State v. Knuff,
2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 211
(describing the appellant’s efforts to dispose of evidence as supporting the jury’s
rejection of self-defense claim).
{¶ 52} Because the jury had evidence on which to find the state carried its burden
on the second element of self-defense, we need not address the first element of self-
defense. This is not the exceptional case in which the jury clearly lost its way and the
evidence weighs heavily against the conviction, and Carter’s assignment of error is not
well-taken.
20.
V. Conclusion
{¶ 53} For the foregoing reasons, Carter’s appeal of the April 27, 2023 judgment
of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Carter is ordered to pay the
costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Gene A. Zmuda, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
21.
