## Facts

- Carl Kozlosky owned a residence and rented an upstairs unit to Valerie McNaughton, who had a long history of violent conflict with Andre Coleman.
- Kozlosky initially allowed Coleman to live in the home at McNaughton’s request, but later evicted him due to frequent fights.
- McNaughton told Kozlosky Coleman had prior convictions for killing someone and for carrying a concealed weapon.
- On the night of the shooting, McNaughton returned to the home and warned Kozlosky that Coleman was angry and was coming there.
- Coleman arrived multiple times; he forcibly entered by damaging the door despite being told to leave.
- McNaughton testified that Coleman invited Kozlosky to “shoot it out” and kept a hand behind his back as if armed.
- During the final entry, Coleman assaulted McNaughton inside the home; Kozlosky intervened and believed Coleman reached behind his back for a gun.
- Kozlosky shot Coleman twice and then fired again while Coleman was on the floor; Coleman died.
- Kozlosky admitted the shooting but claimed he acted in self-defense and defense of another in his own home.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial because the prosecutor intentionally provoked the defense into requesting a mistrial at the first trial.
2. Whether the murder conviction and firearm specifications were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, given the self-defense/justification claim.
3. Whether evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, particularly on self-defense, denied Kozlosky a fair trial.

## Decision

- Retrial was not barred by double jeopardy because the record did not show the prosecutor intended to provoke a mistrial under the controlling standard.
- The convictions for murder and firearm specifications were reversed because the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence on justification/self-defense.
- The case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- When a defendant requests a mistrial, retrial is barred only if the prosecutor’s conduct was intended to provoke the mistrial; improper or prejudicial questioning alone is insufficient.
- Sufficiency review tests legal adequacy of evidence to support the verdict; manifest-weight review examines the effect of the evidence and permits reversal when the jury clearly loses its way and a miscarriage of justice results.
- Where the record strongly supports self-defense/justification—particularly in the defendant’s home against a forcible intruder with violent conduct—the State must meaningfully negate that justification; failure to do so can render a guilty verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that double jeopardy did not bar a second trial after a defense-requested mistrial absent proof of prosecutorial intent to provoke it, but reversed the murder and firearm-specification convictions because the jury’s rejection of self-defense/justification was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and remanded for a new trial.


State v. Kozlosky, 195 Ohio App. 3d 343 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2011)