inline">[Cite as State v. Griffin, 2024-Ohio-5846

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio/City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. L-24-1030

Appellee Trial Court No. CRB-23-12000

Kristeena Griffin DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: December 13, 2024

*****

Tyler Naud Jechura, for appellant.

*****
MAYLE, J.

{¶ 1} Following a bench trial, the defendant-appellant, Kristeena Griffin, was

convicted by the Toledo Municipal Court of two counts of assault and one count of

domestic violence and sentenced to probation. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Background

{¶ 2} On December 17, 2023, Griffin was living alone, in her late grandfather’s

home, located on Elmwood Street in Toledo. Family members “allowed” Griffin to live

there because it was wintertime and she “had nowhere to stay.” The record indicates that

Griffin has long-standing mental health issues that have caused significant problems over

the years.

{¶ 3} Griffin testified that in the late afternoon that day, she went outside “to

address” the “little hellions” who were “running amuck in the neighborhood, holding

people hostage, tearing shit up and leaving trash everywhere.” Afterward, Griffin went

back inside to “blast[]” music “as a form of personal relaxation and self-therapy.”

{¶ 4} During the incident outside, Griffin’s younger sister, M.K., received a call

from someone in the neighborhood who reported that Griffin was outside “doing very

bizarre, erratic things,” including “threatening neighbors.” M.K. testified that Griffin had

also recently sent “alarming” messages to their mother, calling her “worthless” and

saying that mother “should just kill” herself and Griffin. In light of these events, M.K.

and her boyfriend, B.A., drove to the house, where they were joined by another sister, H,

and Griffin’s step-father (“step-father”). Stepfather also acted as Griffin’s landlord and

had a key to the home. The purpose of their visit was to do a “well-check” on Griffin and

to “see what was going on with her.”

{¶ 5} By the time the family members arrived, Griffin was back inside “blasting

music very loud,” which was “abnormal for her.” M.K. knocked on the front door and

2.
told Griffin that she wanted “to talk.” Using step-father’s key, M.K and H unlocked the

door, but because Griffin was sitting against the door on the interior side, “you couldn’t

get in.” Talking through the door, M.K. repeated that it was “just” her and H, and that

they wanted “to come in and talk.” According to M.K., “when we let her know it was

just me and [H], she got off the door and allowed us in the house.”

{¶ 6} H walked in first, without incident. But, “[a]s soon as [M.K.] walked in,”

Griffin “grabbed” and “tossed” her two to three feet into a wall, hurting M.K.’s arm “a

little bit.” After Griffin attacked M.K., the other members of the group—B.A., stepfather,

and H—“tried to hold [Griffin] back [b]ecause she was going after everybody to charge

and attack them.” M.K. watched as Griffin “headbutted” B.A. in the head, twice, which

“[a]lmost knock[ed] him unconscious.” Ultimately, step-father and H “got her to sit

down” on the couch, even as Griffin was “still trying to fight people” and continuing to

say things that “made no sense.”

{¶ 7} B.A. testified that Griffin “agreed to let her sisters come in the house” while

he and step-father “agreed to stay outside” in an attached “porched-in area.” Despite the

“agreement,” Griffin “attacked” M.K. “the moment she stepped in[side].” And, when it

appeared to B.A. that Griffin “was about to charge at the father,” B.A. “held her back” by

“bear hug[ging]” Griffin “at the doorway.” After a two to three minute “standstill,” B.A.

released her because he thought that Griffin had “de-escalated.” Instead, Griffin headbutt

B.A., twice, in the side of the face. The first headbutt did not cause pain because B.A.

was still “braced,” but the second headbutt was painful.

3.
{¶ 8} Griffin testified in her own defense. She recalled “leaning against [the

door],” but denied allowing anyone entry, including her sisters. According to Griffin,

“[all four] fought their way into the house.” The scuffle began in the doorway, where

Griffin was “force[d] . . . backwards” into the house and “end[ed] back on the couch.”

Griffin claimed that while she was being held, M.K. “pinched [her] right nipple” and

step-father “pinched [her] left.” In response to her family’s “craven” and “demonic”

actions, Griffin “did a little thump . . . towards [step-father’s] nutsack” and “headbutt the

shit out of [B.A.] twice,” because she was the “least familiar” with him and “who the hell

[was he] to be touching me right now.”

{¶ 9} Griffin emphasized that she “absolutely” did not give anyone permission to

enter her home, and claimed to have told them that “[t]his is illegal” and “[y]ou don’t

have the right to be here.” Later, the police entered the home and arrested Griffin in her

upstairs bedroom, which she claimed was also “illegal.”

{¶ 10} Griffin was charged with three misdemeanor offenses: two counts of

assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.13, and a single count of domestic violence, in violation

of R.C. 2919.25(A).

{¶ 11} Following a bench trial on January 17, 2024, the trial court found Griffin

guilty as charged and convicted her on all counts. In its Amended Sentencing Entry,

dated March 5, 2024, the trial court found that the assault offense (as against M.K.) and

the domestic violence offense (also against M.K.) were allied offenses, which merged for

purposes of sentencing. The trial court then sentenced Griffin to 180 days in jail, as to

4.
the domestic violence offense, and an additional 180 days, as to the other assault offense

(as against B.A.). The court then suspended each jail term and placed Griffin on

community control for a term of two years.1 The community control sanctions required

Griffin to exhibit “good behavior” and to have no contact with either victim or the home

on Elmwood Street. The trial court ordered Griffin to have a mental health assessment

and to comply with any treatment recommendations.

{¶ 12} Griffin appealed and raises the following assignment of error for our

review:

APPELLANT’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The trial court

errored [sic] when it did not find Ms. Griffin acted in self-defense and

instead convicted her of domestic violence when a rebuttable presumption

existed that was not addressed.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶ 13} First, we note that Griffin does not challenge the sufficiency or weight of

the evidence supporting the offenses of domestic violence or assault. Rather, she

challenges the trial court’s finding that she did not act in self-defense. See State v.

Petway,

2020-Ohio-3848, ¶ 46

 (11th Dist.) (“The elements of the crime and the existence


1
 While the trial court referred to “probation” in its sentencing order, the enactment of
R.C. 2929.25, effective in 2003, replaced the term “probation” in reference to suspended
sentences for misdemeanors under the prior statute (R.C. 2951.02) with “community
control.” State v. Wagener,

2022-Ohio-724, ¶ 3, fn. 1

 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Mack,

2012-Ohio-2960

, ¶ 1, fn 1 (6th Dist.). Accordingly, we use the term “community
control.”



5.
of self-defense are separate issues. . . Self-defense seeks to relieve the defendant from

culpability rather than to negate an element of the offense charged.”).

       {¶ 14} There are two types of self-defense in Ohio: (1) defense against danger of

bodily harm, also known as non-deadly force self-defense; and (2) defense against danger

of death or great bodily harm, or deadly force self-defense. State v. Rice, 2022-Ohio-

3291, ¶ 58 (7th Dist.). Griffin asserted the use of non-deadly force self-defense at trial.

       {¶ 15} In a case involving the use of non-deadly force, an accused is justified in

using force against another if “(1) [s]he was not at fault in creating the situation giving

rise to the affray; (2) [s]he had reasonable grounds to believe [and] an honest belief that. .

. [s]he is in imminent danger of bodily harm, and (3) [s]he did not use more force than

was reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent danger of bodily harm.” State

v. Greer,

2023-Ohio-103, ¶ 33

 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Paskins,

2022-Ohio-4024, ¶ 48


(5th Dist.). “Because each element must exist for a self-defense claim to prevail, the

[S]tate can defeat a self-defense claim by disproving any one of these elements beyond a

reasonable doubt.” State v. Knuff,

2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 191

.

       {¶ 16} In State v. Messenger,

2022-Ohio-4562

, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified

the burden of proof where a defendant asserts a claim of self-defense under the version of

the statute that became effective March 28, 2019. That is, “R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) triggers

the State’s duty to disprove self-defense so long as ‘there is evidence presented that tends

to support that the accused person used the force in self-defense’”—a burden that is not

all that heavy. Id. at ¶ 20, 22 (“The reference in R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) to ‘evidence

6.
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 own

evidence.”). As such, “a defendant charged with an offense involving the use of force has

the burden of producing legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s use of force was

in self-defense.” Id. at ¶ 25. “[I]f the defendant’s evidence and any reasonable inferences

about that evidence would allow a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of a self-

defense claim when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, then the

defendant has satisfied the burden,” and the State must then disprove self-defense. Id. at

¶ 25. In that case, “the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review applies to [the

defendant’s] burden of production and a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard of

review applies to the state’s burden of persuasion.” Id. at ¶ 26. The State’s burden of

disproving the defendant’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt is subject to a

manifest-weight review on appeal. Id. at ¶ 27.

{¶ 17} In evaluating a manifest weight challenge involving self-defense, we must

review the entire record, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether the

trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice with respect

to its finding that the state disproved at least one of the elements of self-defense beyond a

reasonable doubt. State v. Gibson,

2023-Ohio-1640, ¶ 12

 (1st Dist.), citing State v.

Thompkins,

78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387

(1997).

{¶ 18} Here, Griffin produced sufficient evidence, by way of her own testimony,

that tended to show that she acted in self-defense when she assaulted M.K. and B.A.

7.
That is, Griffin testified that she “absolutely” did not give anyone permission to enter her

home. Instead, she claims that “all four of them. . . fought their way into the house”

which “force[d] her backwards. . . on the couch” where they “h[eld] on to [her]” and

“pinched” her nipples. Although Griffin admits that she “headbutt the shit out of [B.A],”

she claims that she did so because he was “touching” her. Viewing that evidence in the

light most favorable to Griffin, we find that a rational trier of fact could find all of the

elements of a self-defense claim. Therefore, Griffin satisfied her burden of production,

and the burden shifted to the state to disprove self-defense by establishing beyond a

reasonable doubt that Griffin (1) was at fault in creating the situation giving rise the

affray; or (2) that she did not have reasonable grounds to believe or an honest belief that

she was in imminent danger of bodily harm; or (3) that she used more force than was

reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent danger of bodily harm.

{¶ 19} Because it is dispositive of Griffin’s self-defense claim, we will confine our

analysis to the first element of self-defense, i.e., whether Griffin “was at fault in creating

the situation giving rise to the affray * * *.” State v. Mitchell,

2023-Ohio-2604

, ¶ 19 (1st

Dist.), citing

Gibson at ¶ 11

. “The ‘not at fault’ requirement * * * means that the

defendant must not have been the first aggressor in the incident.”

Id.,

 citing State v.

Robbins,

58 Ohio St.2d 74

 (1979).

       {¶ 20} On appeal, Griffin insists that she was “not the initial aggressor” and that

her family members’ actions required her to “f[ight] back.” While the state did not file a

brief in this case, the record contains other evidence, namely testimony from M.K. and



8.
B.A., that Griffin “agreed to let her sisters come in the house” and that Griffin “attacked”

M.K. the moment she stepped inside, even though M.K. did not “do or say anything.”

After “toss[ing]” M.K. two or three feet into a wall, Griffin tried “attacking everybody.”

When Griffin “charge[d]” stepfather, B.A. intervened to “restrain [Griffin] from . . .

harming anybody else.” And, Griffin “headbutt the shit” out of B.A., after he had

released her from his bearhug.

         {¶ 21} The trial court, acting as factfinder, was “free to believe some, all or none

of each witness’s testimony and [to] separate the credible parts of the testimony from the

incredible parts.” Greer,

2023-Ohio-103 at ¶ 41

 (6th Dist.). Given the contradictory

evidence presented at trial, the trial court was in the best position to weigh the evidence

and to judge the witness’s credibility. State v. Speaks,

2024-Ohio-15

 (12th Dist.). In light

of its verdict, the trial court clearly decided that the State’s version of events was more

credible. Indeed, it specifically found that Griffin “had calmed down and allowed [her

sister] to enter the home. And at that point, the assaults took place.” The trial court’s

rejection of Griffin’s self-defense claim is not against the manifest weight of the evidence

simply because the trier of fact believed the testimony and evidence presented by the

State.

         {¶ 22} We find that the trial court’s rejection of Griffin’s self-defense claim was

not against the manifest weight of the evidence because, based upon the testimony and

evidence presented, a reasonable factfinder could have found that Griffin was at fault in

creating the situation giving rise to the affray. As discussed above, the state was only



9.
required to disprove one of the three elements of self-defense in order to defeat Griffin’s

self-defense claim. Knuff,

2024-Ohio-902, at ¶ 191

.

       {¶ 23} Finally, we reject Griffin’s argument that she was acting in self-defense

because she was “in her home” and “attempting to expel” family members who were

“unlawfully present.” It is true that, under R.C. 2901.09, “a person does not have a duty

to retreat before using force in self-defense if the person using force ‘is in a place in

which the person lawfully has a right to be.’” Knuff at ¶ 193 citing 2020 Am.S.B. No.

175 (Explaining that an amendment to the statute in 2021 “expand[ed] the provision from

a ‘castle doctrine’ provision to a ‘stand your ground’ provision.”). Id. at ¶ 193, fn. 5.

R.C. 2901.09 creates an exception to the third element of self-defense, the duty to retreat.

State v. James,

2024-Ohio-621, ¶ 38

 (1st Dist.). However, “it does not negate the

remaining elements of self-defense.”

Id.

 And, because the trial court in this case found

that Griffin was at fault in creating the situation, it could not acquit on self-defense

grounds.

Knuff at ¶ 196

. (“Therefore, if the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that

Knuff was at fault in creating the situation, it could not acquit him on self-defense

grounds regardless of whether he had a duty to retreat.”);

James at ¶ 38

. (“even if

appellant did not violate any duty to retreat pursuant to R.C. 2901.09(B), appellant’s self-

defense claim still fails where there is credible evidence that he did not have an honest or

reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger.”). As in Knuff, Griffin’s self-defense

claim “collapsed” once the trial court found that she was at fault in creating the situation

and therefore, whether or not she had a to retreat was “irrelevant.” Id. at ¶ 194.

10.
III. Conclusion

{¶ 24} After our review of the entire record, we conclude the trial court did not

clearly lose its way or create a manifest miscarriage of justice when it found the State

proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Griffin did not act in self-defense when she

assaulted and committed domestic violence against the victims in this case. Therefore,

we find Griffin’s assignment of error is not well-taken, and we affirm the Toledo

Municipal Court’s judgment. Griffin is ordered the 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.

Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, 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/.

11.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress