## Facts

- Ladasia Brooks was indicted in September 2018 for offenses including aggravated burglary, burglary, possessing criminal tools, assault, domestic violence, and criminal damaging arising from a June 5, 2018 incident involving her ex-boyfriend and another woman.
- Brooks proceeded to a jury trial in October 2019, after the March 28, 2019 effective date of 2018 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 228, which amended Ohio’s self-defense burden-of-proof rule in R.C. 2901.05.
- Brooks asserted self-defense at trial, and evidence was presented tending to support that defense.
- The trial court instructed the jury under the pre-amendment rule, requiring Brooks to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than requiring the State to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Brooks was convicted on certain counts.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the statutory change did not apply because the conduct occurred before March 28, 2019, and it certified a conflict with another appellate district that applied the amendment to post-effective-date trials even when the offense predated the amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether H.B. 228’s amendment to R.C. 2901.05 shifting the burden to the prosecution to disprove self-defense applies to trials held on or after March 28, 2019, regardless of when the alleged offense occurred.
2. Whether applying the amended burden-of-proof rule to a post-effective-date trial for a pre-effective-date offense violates Ohio’s Retroactivity Clause (Ohio Const. art. II, § 28).
3. Whether such application violates the federal Ex Post Facto Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that H.B. 228 applies to all pending and new trials held on or after its March 28, 2019 effective date, irrespective of when the alleged conduct occurred.
- The Court held that applying the amendment to such trials violates neither Ohio’s Retroactivity Clause nor the federal Ex Post Facto Clause.
- The Court reversed the appellate judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- When evidence at trial tends to support self-defense (or defense of another or of a residence) under R.C. 2901.05 as amended by H.B. 228, the prosecution bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not act in self-defense.
- A legislative change that reallocates the burden of persuasion for an affirmative defense is treated as a procedural or remedial rule governing the conduct of trials, not as a substantive redefinition of criminal conduct or punishment.
- Applying a procedural trial rule to trials occurring after the rule’s effective date is not unconstitutional “retroactive” legislation merely because the charged conduct occurred earlier.
- A burden-shifting change that is favorable to defendants and does not criminalize prior lawful conduct, increase punishment, or eliminate a defense does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court required application of H.B. 228’s self-defense burden shift in all trials conducted on or after March 28, 2019, including prosecutions for earlier conduct, and ordered further proceedings because the jury was instructed under the pre-amendment burden allocation.


State v. Brooks, 170 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 2022)