State v. Lewis

[Cite as State v. Lewis, 2025-Ohio-2178.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1289 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202301264 v. Christopher Lewis DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: June 20, 2025 ***** Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Randy L. Meyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Sarah Anjum, for appellant. ***** OSOWIK, J. {¶ 1} This is an appeal from the judgment by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, which sentenced appellant, Christopher M. Lewis, to an indefinite prison term of four to six years for felonious assault, plus a mandatory three years for the firearm specification, plus 180 days for aggravated menacing, after a jury convicted him of those offenses. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the trial court’s judgment.  {¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following five assignments of error: 1. The trial court committed plain error in its instructions to the jury on self- defense/defense of others, violating Mr. Lewis’ right to a trial by jury under Ohio Const., art. I § 10 and U.S. Const., amend. XIV. 2. Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the incorrect self- defense/defense of others instruction in violation of Mr. Lewis’ rights under U.S. Const., amend. VI; U.S. Const., amend. XIV; and Ohio Const., art. I § 10. 3. Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to develop and present evidence of Appellant’s PTSD and traumatic brain injury to assert self- defense/defense of others at trial and in mitigation at Sentencing in violation of Mr. Lewis’ rights under Ohio Const., art. I § 10; U.S. Const., amend. VI and; U.S. Const., amend. XIV. 4. Mr. Lewis’ convictions as to both counts were not supported by sufficient evidence in violation of his due process rights under the U.C. Const., amend. XIV and Mr. Lewis’ rights under U.S. Const., amend. VI; U.S. Const., amend. XIV and Ohio Const., art. I § 10. 5. The verdict as to each count was against the manifest weight of the evidence. I. Background {¶ 3} On February 22, 2022, a Lucas County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one count of felonious assault, a violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), and a second-degree felony under R.C. 2903.11(D), and one count of aggravated menacing, a violation of R.C. 2903.21(A), and a fourth-degree felony under R.C. 2903.21(B). Each count added a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A), (B), (C), and (F). Appellant entered not- guilty pleas, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. Prior to trial, appellant filed a notice of intent to assert self-defense. At the start of trial appellee, the state of Ohio, amended the aggravated menacing indictment down to a first-degree misdemeanor and dismissed its attached firearm specification. 2  {¶ 4} During the three-day trial, the jury received testimony from nine witnesses, and the trial court admitted 15 exhibits into evidence without objection. Witness testimony was provided by four Toledo police officers and detectives, the victim, the victim’s teenage son, appellant’s next-door neighbor, appellant’s wife, and appellant. The admitted exhibits included body-worn camera videos by the Toledo police officers, home-security videos from appellant’s residence and a neighbor’s residence, the victim’s medical treatment records, the SplatRBall toy gun photographed at the scene, and the 0.22-caliber semiautomatic pistol also retrieved from the scene. To summarize, appellant responded to a teenage prank, called a ding-dong ditch, with a violent assault on a man who had nothing to do with the prank. After deliberations, the jury convicted appellant of all offenses. {¶ 5} The evidence admitted at trial divide the incident, which lasted about 20 minutes, into five sub-events: (A) the ding-dong ditch prank, (B) appellant’s response to the pranksters, (C) appellant’s acts towards the victim and the victim’s son, (D) the police investigation, and (E) appellant’s self-defense claims. A. The Ding-Dong-Ditch Prank {¶ 6} At about 9:15 p.m. in the evening on Saturday, February 4, 2023, in Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, appellant was at home with his wife where both were resting on couches. There was eithe