State v. Jones

195 N.E.3d 561

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.Karlton Stephone JONES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 29214

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County.

Rendered on September 9, 2022

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ELIZABETH A. ELLIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0074332, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.

LUCAS W. WILDER, Atty. Reg. No. 0074057, P.O. Box 574, Dayton, Ohio 45409, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

TUCKER, P.J.

{¶ 1} Karlton Stephone Jones appeals from his conviction following a jury trial on one count of murder with a firearm specification.¹

{¶ 2} Jones advances four assignments of error. He contends the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on Ohio's "castle" doctrine. He claims the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him about illegally possessing a handgun. He also challenges the legal sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence to convict him. Finally, he asserts that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on Ohio's "stand-your-ground" law.

{¶ 3} We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to instruct the jury on R.C. 2901.05(B), which has been recognized as part of the castle doctrine and which in certain circumstances creates a rebuttable presumption that a person using defensive deadly force has acted in self-defense.

{¶ 4} The trial court's judgment will be reversed, and the case will be remanded for further proceedings.

I. Background

{¶ 5} The present appeal stems from a shooting at the Eagle Ridge apartment complex on the afternoon of March 2, 2020. On that date, Jones fatally shot Chendo Buford in a parking lot. Jones does not dispute killing Buford. The only real issue at trial was whether Jones acted in self-defense.

{¶ 6} The record reflects that several friends were socializing in the parking lot shortly before the shooting. They included Buford and Eagle Ridge residents Mike Brown, Garry Wills, and Shandra Bevins. At some point, a female identified as "Casey" approached the group and inquired about buying marijuana. Brown and Buford saw Jones walking in the parking lot and called him over. Jones sold Casey a small amount of marijuana. Following the sale, Jones shook hands with Brown and Buford. What happened next was disputed at trial.

{¶ 7} Brown testified that Buford and Jones were friends and that Buford gave Jones a non-aggressive "bear hug" after the handshake. According to Brown, Jones responded by pulling a handgun from his side and brandishing it. This surprised Brown because it was apparent to him that Buford's hug was playful. Brown explained that Buford became upset and confronted Jones about pulling the weapon. Jones responded that he did not "feel like playing." He then walked to the passenger's side of a car occupied by Wills. Jones entered the car and requested a ride. Brown testified that Buford followed Jones, opened the car door, and said, "Don't you ever pull your gun on me, bro." While speaking, Buford pointed a finger toward Jones but did not hit or threaten to hit him. Brown testified that Jones responded by shooting Buford in the chest, face, and arm before fleeing on foot.

{¶ 8} Wills testified that Jones was friends with the group members. He described the relationship between Jones and Buford as being "cool" in a positive way. While Wills was in the car with his window down, he saw and heard Jones and Buford "playing." According to Wills, Buford grabbed Jones and hugged him. Jones responded by pulling out the handgun, which angered Buford. Wills testified that Jones displayed the gun but did not point it toward anyone. Jones then walked quickly to the passenger's side of the car, got in, and asked for a ride. Wills had not offered a ride and did not expect Jones to enter the car. At that point, Buford put his hand in Jones’ face and said something like, "[D]on't ever point your gun at me ever again." Buford made a similar remark three times before Jones shot him. Wills never saw a gun in Buford's possession and never saw Buford try to assault Jones in any way.

{¶ 9} Bevins testified that after Jones joined the group, she briefly went into her own apartment. When she came back outside, she saw Jones in the passenger's seat of the car being operated by Wills. Bevins heard Jones and Buford "low key arguing" and heard Buford tell Jones never to point a gun at him again. Bevins testified that the passenger-side door opened and she heard gunshots. She observed Jones with a handgun when he exited the car following the shots. Jones fled on foot, and Bevins attempted to assist Buford. Bevins did not observe any weapons in Buford's possession and did not see him try to assault Jones.

{¶ 10} Buford's mother, Elisha Burress, also testified for the prosecution. She was walking back from a store when she saw Buford near the car Wills was driving. She heard Buford say something like, "I thought we were better than that." Burress then heard gunshots and saw her son fall. Wills ran past her and, using nicknames for Jones and Buford, said, "Byrd just shot B.J."

{¶ 11} Jones testified in his own defense at trial. He explained that after selling the marijuana, he shook hands with Brown and Buford. He then walked over to the car and asked Wills for a ride. Wills declined the request. At that point, Buford approached Jones and threatened to "beat [his] ass." In an apparent reference to Jones’ handgun, which was in his pants, Buford also said, "I'll take your shit and pop you with it." Jones testified that he tried to walk away, but Buford grabbed him from behind and pinned him against the trunk of Wills’ car. As Jones struggled to free himself, he felt the firearm sliding down in his pants. Jones grabbed the weapon and felt Buford's hand on it. Jones was able to remove the handgun from his pants and hold it away from Buford. He freed himself from Buford's grasp and secured the weapon in his pocket. He then opened Wills’ car door and got into the passenger's seat. Jones begged Wills to drive away. Wills refused to move but did not order Jones out of the car. Jones testified that he observed a firearm in Wills’ lap. At that point, the passenger's door opened and Buford leaned into the car. According to Jones, Buford poked him in the eye and reached for the firearm in Jones’ pocket. Jones responded by drawing the weapon, pointing it at Buford, and firing multiple times. He then fled on foot. Police arrested him weeks later after he was found hiding under a bed in an apartment in Columbus.

{¶ 12} Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court granted Jones’ request for a self-defense instruction. The trial court refused, however, to instruct the jury on the castle doctrine with regard to Jones’ occupation of Wills’ vehicle. The trial court also refused to instruct the jury on Ohio's stand-your-ground law.

{¶ 13} The jury found Jones guilty on two counts of murder as a proximate result of committing felonious assault (serious physical harm and deadly weapon) with firearm specifications. It also found him guilty on two counts of felonious assault (serious physical harm and deadly weapon) with firearm specifications. The trial court imposed a sentence of 15 years to life in prison for murder as a proximate result committing felonious assault (deadly weapon), with a consecutive three years on the accompanying firearm specification. The trial court merged all other counts and specifications as allied offenses of similar import.

II. Analysis

{¶ 14} Jones advances the following assignments of error:

I. The trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the Castle Doctrine.

II. The trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to cross examine Jones on the illegality of the gun.

III. The jury's verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

IV. The trial court erred in not applying Ohio's "Stand Your Ground" law.

{¶ 15} We begin our analysis with Jones’ first and fourth assignments of error, which address the trial court's jury instructions. We review the denial of a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion. State v. Taylor , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28668, 2020-Ohio-6854, 2020 WL 7648256, ¶ 10, citing State v. Wolons , 44 Ohio St.3d 64, 68, 541 N.E.2d 443 (1989).

{¶ 16} With regard to self-defense, a person generally had a duty to retreat before using deadly force at the time of the incident in question.² State v. Lovett , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29240, 2022-Ohio-1693, 2022 WL 1599013, ¶ 43, citing State v. Williford , 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 250, 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990) and State v. Dale , 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2012-CA-20, 2013-Ohio-2229, 2013 WL 2406261, ¶ 15. The "castle doctrine" is an exception to this rule. It relates to one component of self-defense, identifying circumstances under which a person need not retreat. State v. Martin , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27844, 2018-Ohio-3505, 2018 WL 4183452, ¶ 20. At the time Jones shot Buford, the castle doctrine had been codified in now-former R.C. 2901.09(B) and provided that "a person who lawfully is in that person's residence has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence, and a person who lawfully is an occupant of that person's vehicle or who lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another."³ (Emphasis added.)

{¶ 17} The castle doctrine as set forth in former R.C. 2901.09(B) has no applicability in Jones’ case. He was not occupying his own vehicle or a vehicle owned by an immediate family member at the time of the shooting. Instead, he was occupying a vehicle driven by Wills and owned by Wills’ girlfriend.

{¶ 18} Jones’ appellate argument focuses on a different statute, R.C. 2901.05,...