COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday that firing warning shots can be considered "self-defense," giving a win to gun rights advocates. But the Second Amendment supporters were surprised to learn that the decision was made by three liberal justices and one conservative.
During an altercation at a gas station in 2021, Tyler Wilson fired a warning shot at Billy Reffett's car, claiming he was acting in self-defense. Wilson claims Reffett threatened him and pulled a gun on him.
But a Clark County judge said Wilson wasn’t protecting himself because he didn’t aim the gun at the supposed assailant, so the judge didn’t allow him to argue self-defense in court, seemingly saying that if Wilson was really scared for his life, he should have shot Reffett. His defense attorney didn't fight back for him.
Wilson was acquitted of attempted murder but was found guilty of felonious assault. He was sentenced to more than a decade in prison.
The Second District Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court 2-1, denying his request to overturn. He argued that his attorney was ineffective.
Buckeye Firearms Association's Rob Sexton believes these rulings are unconstitutional.
"If you're in fear for your life or trying to protect yourself or other loved ones from harm, that a warning shot can be an element of self-defense," Sexton argued.
The Ohio Supreme Court agreed and just overruled that judge.
The court was split in a 4-3 decision, saying that warning shots can be considered self-defense, even if you aren’t trying to kill or injure someone.
Sexton was surprised when he read the opinion — not because of the ruling — but because of who made it.
"Knowing that the High Court has agreed with that, even those that you would typically assume would not be necessarily pro-Second Amendment, makes a stronger case for future self-defense claims," he said.
The court is Republican-leaning, but it was the three liberal justices and one conservative who asserted that Ohio’s laws only require the “intent to repel or escape force.” All agreed that the counsel was ineffective, as well.
Justice Melody Stewart wrote the opinion with Justices Michael P. Donnelly and Jennifer Brunner joining. Justice Pat Fischer, the lone Republican, concurred in judgment only — meaning he agreed with the result but neglected to write an opinion on why.
While this ruling seems to expand gun rights, Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin explained that this case isn’t really about guns.
"This is more a question of how easily should it be to assert self-defense," Entin said.
The court didn't say that this particular defendant had acted in self-defense — but only that the jury should have been allowed to consider whether he did.
Justice Joe Deters wrote the dissent with Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and Justice Pat DeWine joining, saying that the trial court was right to deny the self-defense jury instruction.
They argued that Wilson’s testimony didn’t prove self-defense and that the jury should not have been instructed to consider that this was an act of defense.
"Deters and Chief Justice Kennedy and Justice DeWine are saying, 'we don't wanna make it too easy for people to assert self-defense because then maybe some bad actors will get off when they shouldn't,'" the professor explained.
It also just isn't how the law is written, Deters said.
"Wilson was charged with felonious assault... which makes it a crime for a person to knowingly 'cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another' by means of a deadly weapon," Deters wrote. "There was no evidence that Wilson caused physical harm to Reffett, so the state of Ohio had to prove that Wilson attempted to cause physical harm to Reffett—a premise Wilson flatly denied."
This may seem like a technicality, and it may be to some — but if the burden of self-defense is lowered, that could cause a ripple effect in criminal cases.
"That may expand the possibilities for self-defense because if it requires only a showing that you were trying to scare off an assailant, that might make self-defense something that more people try to assert," Entin said.
All of that being said, requiring lethal violence to get a result isn't ideal, he added.
"Realistically, if you got somebody who's trying to scare off a possible assault, then maybe you don't want to have a rule that says you've got to be trying to kill or, or maim this, this person before you can assert self-defense," he added.
Still, Sexton sees this as a win for gun owners.
"It's clear that the court agrees with the elements of self-defense," he said. "I think that's a positive development."
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
