## Facts

- Teresa Thomas lived with her boyfriend, Jerry W. Flowers, in a mobile home.
- Thomas described a history of escalating physical abuse and coercive control by Flowers, including serious injuries requiring medical treatment.
- Thomas testified that Flowers controlled money and employment, demanded receipts and exact change, and sometimes withheld food.
- In the weeks before the shooting, Thomas said Flowers would awaken her by restricting her breathing and repeatedly threatened to kill her and conceal her body.
- On September 15, 1993, Thomas shot and killed Flowers inside their home.
- Thomas admitted the shooting but asserted self-defense, supported by expert testimony regarding battered woman syndrome.
- The trial court gave standard self-defense instructions and a brief instruction on battered woman syndrome’s relevance, but did not provide a detailed definition of the syndrome.
- Thomas was convicted; the appellate court treated duty to retreat in the home as depending on whether the victim was an intruder and addressed the adequacy of the battered-woman-syndrome instruction.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed (1) duty to retreat in the home when the assailant is a cohabitant with equal possessory rights and (2) whether special jury instructions defining battered woman syndrome were required.

## Issues

1. Whether a person attacked in her own home has a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense when the assailant is a cohabitant with an equal right to be in the home.
2. Whether, in a self-defense case supported by expert testimony on battered woman syndrome, the trial court must give specialized or detailed jury instructions defining the syndrome beyond standard self-defense instructions and a general explanatory charge.

## Decision

- The court held there is no duty to retreat from one’s own home before using lethal force in self-defense against a cohabitant with an equal right to be in the home.
- The court reversed the appellate court on the duty-to-retreat issue.
- The court held the trial court’s instructions were adequate where the jury received correct self-defense elements and a general instruction permitting consideration of battered woman syndrome evidence.
- The court affirmed the appellate court on the jury-instruction issue.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio self-defense requires: (1) the defendant was not at fault in creating the situation, (2) the defendant had a bona fide belief of imminent death or great bodily harm and that deadly force was the only means of escape, and (3) the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat.
- The “home exception” to retreat applies in the home regardless of whether the assailant is an intruder or a co-occupant with equal rights to the premises.
- The no-retreat rule in the home is place-based; it does not turn on the assailant’s possessory interest.
- Battered woman syndrome evidence may be considered in evaluating the defendant’s claimed belief in imminent danger and the reasonableness of her perceptions within the standard self-defense framework.
- Expert testimony on battered woman syndrome does not create a separate defense and does not require an elaborate, technical jury instruction if the jury is properly instructed on self-defense and told it may consider the syndrome evidence for that purpose.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a person attacked in her own home has no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense even when the attacker is a cohabitant with equal occupancy rights, and it upheld standard self-defense instructions supplemented by a general instruction allowing jurors to consider battered woman syndrome evidence.


State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St. 3d 323, 673 N.E.2d 1339 (Ohio 1997)