COMMONWEALTH V. CHILDS, 636 PA. 322
BRIEF OVERVIEW:
OUTCOME OF THE CASE:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
The State does not refute the foregoing but, rather, argues that Thomas failed to demonstrate he was not at fault in creating the situation and did not prove he acted in self-defense. Thus, giving a no duty to retreat instruction would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Several courts have addressed similar situations and found that the failure for the jury to be given a castle doctrine instruction was reversible error, under a plain error standard or due to ineffective assistance of counsel. In State v. Lewis, 2012-Ohio-3684, 976 N.E.2d 258 (8th Dist.), the appellate court held that, where the defendant was a resident of the home where the murder occurred but no castle doctrine instruction was given, this constituted plain error and he “did not receive a fair trial because the jury did not deliberate with a complete set of instructions.” In Dale, where the defendant and the victim gave two separate versions of events leading to a shooting which occurred at the defendant’s residence, the court rejected a plain error argument but held that the jury could have found that the elements of self-defense were met, and, thus, defense counsel was ineffective by failing to request a castle doctrine instruction when there was “sufficient evidence of such nature and quality
See also City of Parma v. Treanor, 2018-Ohio-3166, 117 N.E.3d 970, ¶ 26-32 (8th Dist.)
to warrant an instruction on self-defense” and the castle doctrine instruction was not given, reversal of the defendant’s convictions was required.
CONCLUSION:
State v. Guyton, 2016-Ohio-8110, 74 N.E.3d 939, (11th Dist.).
Evid.R. 901(A).
State v. Bickerstaff, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2014-A-0054, 2015-Ohio-4014,
State v. Bickerstaff, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2014-A-0054, 2015-Ohio-4014,
Bickerstaff at ¶ 17
State v. Norris, 2016-Ohio-5729, 76 N.E.3d 405, ¶ 39-43 (2d Dist.).
content provided “sufficient foundational evidence” to demonstrate the defendant was the one speaking . Additionally, testimony and records that establish subscriber information, either through a representative of a cell phone company or an individual with experience reviewing said records, provide another valid method of authentication . Such methods, by demonstrating a link to Dixon’s ownership and/or use of the cell phone, would be sufficient for the purposes of authentication. Furthermore, it appears that the text messages in question could aid the defense in establishing the circumstances under which Brack entered the party, adding potential support to the conclusion that he was the aggressor. Contrary to the State’s argument, then, such messages would be relevant. While the Court noted that it need not rule on whether the lower court erred in excluding the text message records for the purposes of this appeal, nothing in this court’s ruling precludes the defendant from seeking to have the records properly admitted in a subsequent trial. Having made the foregoing clarifications, the court found the first assignment of error moot. Given that the convictions must be reversed and a new trial held, the remaining assignments of error, which relate to the weight of the evidence as to the Felonious Assault convictions and alleged errors in sentencing are rendered moot. Thus, the court declined to address the fourth through ninth assignments of error. Therefore, the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs to be taxed against the appellee.
Ammoright will continue to publish additional legal research, so check back often.
