## Facts

- The State of Ohio charged Central Brown with multiple offenses, including felonious assault of a peace officer, defined to include attempting to cause physical harm to a peace officer by means of a deadly weapon.
- At trial, the state presented testimony from two witnesses who were in a car with Brown on the evening of the shooting: the driver and a backseat passenger.
- Both witnesses testified Brown sat in the front passenger seat.
- The witnesses testified Brown fired a loaded gun at a house four times after being told the house belonged to a police officer.
- The state presented testimony from the driver’s girlfriend that Brown later told her he had “shot at the officer’s house.”
- The state also presented evidence that the house was the residence of a peace officer, that three bullets entered the house that night, and that the house lights were on at the time.
- The peace officer was not at home when the shots were fired.
- The jury found Brown guilty of felonious assault of a peace officer, and the trial court entered a judgment of conviction.
- Brown appealed, arguing that because the officer was not home, it was impossible to commit felonious assault of a peace officer.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may be convicted of felonious assault of a peace officer—defined to include attempting to cause physical harm to a peace officer by means of a deadly weapon—when the officer was not home at the time the defendant fired into the officer’s residence.
2. Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Brown attempted to cause physical harm to a peace officer by shooting at the house he was told belonged to an officer.

## Decision

- The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Brown’s conviction.
- The court rejected Brown’s argument that the officer’s absence made the offense impossible to commit.
- The court concluded the evidence supported the jury’s finding that Brown fired at the house after being told it belonged to a police officer and that this conduct satisfied the statute’s attempt component.

## Legal Principles

- When a criminal statute includes “attempting to cause physical harm” as part of the offense, the state is not required to prove the victim was actually injured.
- Factual impossibility—unknown circumstances that prevent completion of the intended harm (such as the intended victim not being present)—does not bar attempt liability when the defendant’s intent and conduct meet the attempt standard.
- A jury may infer intent to cause physical harm from circumstantial evidence, including statements identifying the target and admissions made afterward.
- Firing multiple shots from a loaded firearm at a residence believed to be the targeted victim’s home can constitute conduct strongly supporting an intent to cause physical harm, even if the targeted person is not ultimately present.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld Brown’s felonious-assault-of-a-peace-officer conviction, holding that shooting into a peace officer’s residence after being told it was the officer’s home constituted an attempted felonious assault, and the officer’s absence at the time of the shooting did not provide an impossibility defense.


State v. Brown, 1996 WL 139626 (1996)