CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. JL1N 0 8 2Ci,9. CL[Rki OF COURT SUPREME i,'of1rt 0F 0HI0 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. JOSEPH GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from the Guernsey County Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District Case No Court of Appeals Case No. 11 CA 15 MEMORANDUM CONTRA APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION Daniel G. Padden ( ) Guernsey County Prosecuting Attorney Supreme Court Reg. No West Eighth Street P.O. Box 640 Cambridge, OH Phone: Fax: Dan. ll ^^E_ JL1N 0 8 2Ci,9 CL[Rki OF COURT SUPREME i,'of1rt 0F 0HI0 Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee, State of Ohio CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Eric J. Allen ( ) The Law Office of Eric J. Allen, LTD 713 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio (614) (614) Counsel for Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Graham

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of Facts...1 Statement of the Case...:... 2 Explanation of Why this Case does not Involve a Substantial Constitutional Question and is not a Case of Public or Great Gen e ral I nterest...:... 2 Conclusion... 4 Certificate of Service... 5

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Case: paue State v. Hull (2006), 11 Ohio St.3d 183, 206 Ohio 4252, 852 N. E.2d State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St Statute: Ohio Revised Code Section , 3 iii

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS On January 6, 2012, Derek Holdren (hereinafter referred to as "Holdren") went to a friend's home with his girlfriend, Ashley Rogers (hereinafter referred to as "Rogers"). Rogers and Holdren had an "off and on" relationship. Prior to her relationship with Holdren, Rogers had dated Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Graham (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant") and Rogers and Appellant shared a child. While at the friend's home, Rogers called Appellant and requested that he come to her location to get her. Also present at the friends' home was Alisha Dillon. After Rogers left the home with Appellant, Holdren and Alisha Dillon left and travelled to Appellant's home located on Woodlawn Avenue in Cambridge, Guernsey County, Ohio. Holdren drove around the block in which Appellant's home was located, pulled into an alley behind Appellant's home and parked his vehicle. Appellant, who was inside the home at the time of Holdren's arrival, yelled at Holdren from an upstairs window. Appellant then exited his home and came onto the back porch area of the home. Holdren walked towards the back of the home and approached the chain link fence in the back yard. After reaching this location, Holdren began to walk back towards his vehicle as Appellant came off his porch and came towards Holdren. (Transcript of jury trial, State v. Joseph Graham. p. 82, hereinafter referred to as "Tr. p. -") Thereafter, Appellant and Holdren ran at each other and began fighting. (Tr. p. 182) During the altercation, Holdren ended up on the ground with Appellant on top of him. Rogers yelled at Appellant to stop because she was afraid Appellant was going to kill Holdren. Appellant did not stop and instead continued to hit, kick and spit on Holdren while he was lying on the ground. (Tr. p. 255) Holdren was finally able to escape Appellant and retreated to his vehicle. Holdren drove from the scene and continued to drive until he encountered officers of the Cambridge Police Department,

5 opened his door and fell out of the vehicle. Holdren was observed to have suffered several injuries including bruising and swelling to his face and head and a knife wound to his side. Doctor Clark Leslie of the Southeastern Ohio Regional Medical Center treated Holdren, conducting surgery to repair the wound which Dr. Leslie found to be a puncture wound that appeared to have been caused by a large knife. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's statement of the case is accurate. EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND IS NOT A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST Appellant's proposition of law in this matter does not involve a substantial constitutional question and is not an issue of public or great general interest. Instead, this matter involves issues of statutory construction and Appellant's view of what he believes the statute should provide. In addition, Appellant's argument is contrary to a century's worth of precedent from this Court. First, this case does not involve a substantial constitutional question or, in reality, any constitutional question at all. The claim of a defense of self-defense and/or defense of others is not a constitutional right guaranteed by the Ohio or United States Constitution. Further, the statute at issue here, being the so-called "Castle Doctrine" as codified at ORC , does not limit or infringe upon any right provided in either the Ohio or the United States Constitution. Appellant argues to this Court that the statute does not provide enough protection and therefore, that the statute should be expanded to provide greater protection. Appellant cites to the "Castle Doctrine" and simply argues that it should be 2

6 extended to provide protection for one in his/her yard or the curtilage of his/her home. As previously stated by this Court, "As a general principal of statutory construction, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated that if the meaning of the statute is unambiguous and definite, it must be applied as written and no further interpretation is necessary." State v. Hull (2006), 110 Ohio St.3d 183, 206 Ohio 4252, 852 N.E.2d 706 The Castle Doctrine as set forth in ORC is clear and unambiguous in its scope and application. No further interpretation of the statute is necessary. Appellant essentially concedes this and acknowledges in his memorandum in support of jurisdiction that the Fifth District Court of Appeals' decision in this matter correctly applied the law as it now exists. However, Appellant believes that the protection afforded by the Castle Doctrine should go further. This Court has long recognized what is now codified in statute. State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St In Peacock, and a long line of cases following, this Court held that where one is assaulted in his home, or the home itself is attacked, he may use such means as are necessary to repel the assailant from the house, or to prevent his forcible entry, or material injury to his home, even to the taking of a life. Id Never, in the decades that have passed since the Peacock decision, has this Court determined that a man's "home" should be expanded to include the curtilage surrounding that home. The case sub judice could serve as an example of why the castle doctrine does not and should not be more broadly applied. Specifically, the castle doctrine would have provided a presumption that Appellant acted in self-defense in attacking Holdren IF Holdren had entered or was in the process of entering Appellant's home. That never happened because instead, Appellant left the safe confines of his home and attacked Holdren outside - igniting an already volatile situation and elevating that situation from a shouting match to a near deadly assault. 3

7 While Appellant may argue that Holdren would have or could have tried to enter his home, no one will ever know if that is true. Holdren may have stood in the yard, yelled obscenities and then left without further incident. Appellant could have avoided the bloodshed completely by staying in his home and, if he felt threatened, seeking police assistance. He did not and by leaving his home he instigated this incident. To provide Appellant a presumption of self-defense when he chose to leave the safety of his home to confront an alleged violent, drug influenced person would not only defeat the long established precedent of this court in respect to the Castle Doctrine and selfdefense but would generally encourage violent, belligerent behavior from people in circumstances similar to that of Appellant in this matter. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, this case does not involve a substantial constitutional question and is not a matter of public or great general interest. Appellee therefore respectfully requests that this Court deny jurisdiction in this case. Respectfully submitted, DANIEL G. PADDEN Guernsey County Prosecuting Attorney Supreme Court No West 8th Street P.O. Box 640 Cambridge, Ohio Phone: Fax: dan.padden@guernseyprosecutor.com 4

8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum Contra Appellant's Memorandum ^.Support of Jurisdiction, was served via regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this d'^day of June 2012, upon the following: Eric Allen The Law Office of Eric J. Allen, LTD 713 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio ^ DANIEL G. PADDEN Guernsey County Prosecuting Attorney 5