The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that a Clark County man, Tyler Wilson, who fired a warning shot during an altercation at a gas station, is entitled to argue self-defense. The decision vacates Wilson's felonious assault conviction stemming from the 2021 incident and sends the case back to the Clark County Common Pleas Court for further proceedings.
Wilson was initially acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of felonious assault after firing a shot at Billy Reffett. The bullet struck near Reffett's head. At trial, Wilson claimed he did not aim to harm Reffett but wanted him to "back off." The trial judge did not allow the jury to consider self-defense as part of Wilson's defense.
Justice Melody Stewart wrote in the lead opinion that Ohio's self-defense law does not require intent to harm or kill, only "intent to repel or escape force." Shooting with intent to stop an aggressor is enough for a self-defense jury instruction.
Justices Michael P. Donnelly and Jennifer Brunner supported Justice Stewart’s opinion, while Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred without writing an opinion.
In dissent, Justice Joseph T. Deters argued that Wilson’s actions did not warrant a self-defense instruction because he claimed he was not aiming at Reffett or trying to shoot him. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice R. Patrick DeWine joined Deters' dissenting opinion.
The incident occurred in June 2021 when Wilson confronted Reffett at a gas station over his driving proximity. During their argument, Wilson claimed Reffett threatened him with a gun, which Reffett denied having. Wilson then fired a shot in an upward direction as he drove away, leading to a high-speed chase involving both men.
Wilson testified during his trial that he acted in self-defense because he believed Reffett had pointed a gun at him first. Despite this testimony, the trial judge declined to instruct the jury on self-defense based on how Wilson presented his actions.
The Second District Court of Appeals upheld Wilson’s conviction and rejected claims of ineffective counsel due to the lack of a self-defense instruction request by his attorney. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court found that presenting evidence supporting self-defense does not require showing intent to harm or kill another person under Ohio law R.C. 2901.05(B)(1).
Justice Stewart noted that for nearly 100 years, court rulings have recognized that self-defense presumes intentional use of force “to repel or escape force.” She emphasized that the necessary intent involves repelling force rather than causing harm.
Justice Deters’ dissent explained that asserting self-defense requires admitting some attempt at harm but justifying it legally—a stance different from denying elements of felonious assault altogether as done by Wilson during his trial.