Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Daniel Michael Turner

October 21, 2011

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
DANIEL MICHAEL TURNER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



: T.C. CASE NO. 10CR1787 : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Grady, P.J.:

Cite as State v. Turner,

OPINION

{¶1} Defendant, Daniel Turner, appeals from his conviction and sentence for felonious assault, R.C. 2903.11(A), for knowingly causing serious physical harm to another.

{¶2} On June 3, 2010, Jack Bozarth confronted several children who were gathered in a yard near the intersection of Kings Highway and Arlene Avenue in Dayton about a fight Bozarth's eight-year old grandson had just gotten into with those other children. Several of the children were Yolanda Brown's children. Defendant, who is Brown's adult son, was also present. While Bozarth was yelling at the children, and they were yelling back at him, Brown came out of her house to investigate the commotion. Bozarth and Brown almost immediately began yelling at each other. At some point during the argument, Bozarth struck Brown, causing her to stumble backwards. Defendant then immediately hit Bozarth in the left side of his face, causing multiple fractures, including orbital fractures that caused blood to pool behind Bozarth's left eye. A surgical procedure at Miami Valley Hospital was required to allow the blood to drain from behind Bozarth's eye. Without that procedure, Bozarth may have lost his sight.

{¶3} Defendant was indicted on one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). Following a jury trial,

Defendant was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Defendant to four years in prison.

{¶4} Defendant timely appealed to this court. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO ISSUE A DEFENSE OF ANOTHER JURY INSTRUCTION."

{¶6} Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to give his requested jury instruction on the affirmative defense of defense of another.

{¶7} In State v. Kleekamp, Montgomery App. No. 23533, 2010-Ohio-1906, this court stated:

{¶8} "

{¶35} 'A criminal defendant has the right to expect that the trial court will give complete jury instructions on all issues raised by the evidence.' State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 251, 551 N.E.2d 1279; State v. Mullins, Montgomery App. No. 22301, 2008-Ohio-2892, ¶ 9. As a corollary, a court should not give an instruction unless it is specifically applicable to the facts in the case. State v. Fritz, 163 Ohio App.3d 276, 837 N.E.2d 823, 2005-Ohio-4736, ¶ 19. The decision to give a requested jury instruction is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Davis, Montgomery App. No. 21904, 2007-Ohio-6680, ¶ 14."

{¶9} "'Abuse of discretion' has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87, 19 OBR 123, 126, 482 N.E.2d 1248, 1252. It is to be expected that most instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.