Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court rejects self-defense claim by man who used rubber mallet in attack

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: January 22, 2014

A three-judge appellate panel in the 9th District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas last week convicting Chester Johnson of two counts of felonious assault with violent offender specifications and breaking and entering.

Johnson was sentenced to a total of 14 years in prison for attacking two men with a rubber mallet.

Upon appeal, he argued that the trial court erred when it refused to give the jury instructions regarding the Castle Doctrine, a theory of self-defense.

According to Johnson, he was in his car when the attack took place, therefore, he had no duty to retreat.

The appellate court disagreed, finding that the majority of the incident leading to Johnson’s arrest took place outside of his car.

Case summary stated that Johnson was driving home around midnight when he saw his cousin, Danny McCutcheon standing outside of a bar.

Johnson picked him up and the two briefly visited another bar before Johnson drove McCutcheon home.

At the time, McCutcheon was staying with a friend named Jeff Lutz. When they arrived at the house, McCutcheon invited Johnson in to meet Lutz.

Both Lutz and his friend Andrew Leguillon were sitting on the enclosed porch drinking beer when the two men approached.

Lutz and Leguillon testified at trial that Johnson eventually attacked Lutz and ultimately retrieved a rubber mallet from his car.

Johnson, however, testified that Lutz instigated the fight and that Lutz, Leguillon and McCutcheon chased him into the street and out to his car when he tried to run away.

He told the court that he used the rubber mallet, which Lutz had thrown at him, to strike at the men in order to end the attack.

McCutcheon was treated for a head wound that was bleeding profusely. Lutz later had to have surgery when his doctor discovered a pseudoaneurysm in an artery as a result of a blow to the head.

Johnson suffered injuries to his left forearm which he claimed were sustained when one of the men reached into his car and stabbed him with a screwdriver.

Police testimony, however, established that the puncture wounds on Johnson’s arm matched the points that jutted out of the metal fence surrounding Lutz’s house.

DNA from a piece of flesh that the police discovered on one of the fence’s points was found to be consistent with Johnson’s DNA.

After he was found guilty, Johnson appealed, claiming that he was assaulted while lawfully occupying his vehicle, citing R.C. 2901.09(B).

“Johnson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not instructing the jury pursuant to R.C. 2901.09(B), that he did not have a duty to retreat once lawfully inside his car,” wrote Judge Beth Whitmore on behalf of the court of appeals. “The trial court refused to issue the instruction because, even under Johnson’s version of the events, he was not inside his vehicle when he attacked Lutz and McCutcheon.”

The appellate panel reviewed the record and found that Lutz testified that Johnson threw the first punch and then choked Lutz until Leguillon intervened.

The men told the court that Johnson then left the porch and walked to his car and Lutz locked the metal gate in the yard behind him.

Johnson returned from the car with a claw hammer but was unable to open the gate so he threw the hammer at the house and walked back to his car.

When he returned a second time, Lutz stated he was carrying a rubber mallet, he managed to rip the gate open and proceeded to attack Lutz and McCutcheon.

Johnson claimed that he was attacked first and attempted to run away and get in his car but the men began pulling him out of the car window.

He said he then decided he had to “make the attack stop,” so he put the car in park and got out with the mallet in hand.

Even if the jury believed Johnson’s testimony, the appellate panel held that he was not in his car when he used force against the other men, therefore, the Castle Doctrine did not apply.

“He was not an ‘occupant’ of his vehicle when he attacked Lutz and McCutcheon,” wrote Judge Whitmore. “Consequently, he was not entitled to an instruction under R.C. 2901.09(B), and the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to issue it.”

The court of appeals proceeded to overrule Johnson’s remaining claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court violated his due process rights when it answered questions posed by the jury during deliberations.

Judge Jennifer Hensal joined Judge Whitmore to form the majority, affirming the judgment of the Medina County court.

Presiding Judge Donna Carr dissented, stating that the trial court improperly gave the jury prejudicial instruction regarding the merger of Johnson’s offenses.

The case is cited State v. Johnson, 2013-Ohio-62.

[Back]