Posted on 02/03/2012 11:39:42 AM PST by marktwain
The Ohio Supreme Court declined Wednesday to hear the case of a 55-year-old Cleveland homeowner convicted in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court last year of killing an intruder.
When the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals threw out the conviction of Carl Kozlosky and ordered a new trial, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason appealed the decision. The Ohio Supreme Court's decision Wednesday returns the case to Common Pleas Court.
Kozlosky was sentenced last year to 18 years to life in prison for the shooting death of Andre Coleman on Sept. 20, 2009. Coleman broke into Kozlosky's house and began beating up Valerie McNaughton, who was Coleman's girlfriend.
Kozlosky testified at trial that he thought Coleman was reaching for a gun -- which investigators never found -- when he emptied his .38-caliber revolver into Coleman. Previous Plain Dealer coverage
* Appeals court overturns murder verdict in Cuyahoga County 'Castle Doctrine' case (Sept. 23, 2011)
* Cleveland man, 53, charged with aggravated murder in fatal shooting of man who invaded his home (Sept. 22, 2009)
Coleman, who had previously been convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 1997, had been on an all-night crack binge, according to court testimony, when he broke down the back door of Kozlosky's Cherokee Avenue home to get money or drugs from McNaughton.
Attorneys for Kozlosky have argued that his case was one of self-defense that fell under the Castle Doctrine. It is a law updated in 2008 by the Ohio legislature to give people an automatic assumption that they act in self-defense when using lethal force against someone illegally entering their home.
Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecutors Matthew Meyer and Michael O'Malley said prosecutors will review the evidence to determine if they will bring new charges against Kozlosky. He has been free since Nov. 2 after posting a $10,000 bond.
"The Castle Doctrine gives a presumption people can defend themselves in their home," Meyer said. "In some cases, the government has to overcome the presumption."
Added Timothy Sweeney, Koslosky's appellate attorney, "The Ohio Supreme Court's decision is certainly good news." He declined to comment further.
Even if this was a domestic, was there more to the story? Did the girlfreind claim that it was "just an argument"?
Wait a minute. There has to be more to this story.
FYI
“....emptied his .38-caliber revolver into Coleman...”
How much time between the first and last shot? I suspect this may be the issue here, but I don’t pretend to know.
Personally, I'd be okay if he reloaded twice in the process of stopping this violent thug from beating a girl. Legally, as long as the criminal was still standing or moving in a potentially threatening manner, as a juror I'd be okay with continuing to shoot until the threat is stopped. As the shooter, I'd responsibly stop as soon as the immediate threat to my life or safety or to that of another was stopped.
As best I can find...
The Appeals Court ruled very strongly that the defendant needed to be found innocent, although they lacked the authority to release him. The prosecutor appealed, saying the Appeals Court didn’t understand the Castle Doctrine. The state Supreme Court rejected that argument, so now the prosecutor needs to try him under rules that will most likely result in a release, or just release him.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/09/appeals_court_overturns_murder_1.html
Sounds like the defendant is a scumbag as well, but even scumbags have the right of self defense.
I suspect there's also a racial component to the case. Kozlosky is white, and it sounds like the shot thug is black, which could be an issue given Cleveland's demographics.
Nope, defendant was not a scumbag. He's reportedly a community college professor, as well as a United States Air Force veteran.
How stupid can someone be to convict this guy?
When my wife was taking her Concealed Carry class here in Texas, the instructor told the class that when the judge asks why you shot the victim 19 times the correct answer is, "That's all the ammo I had!"
But, this is Texas!
"One of the woman's family members told The Plain Dealer that Kozlosky had previously threatened to kill Coleman if he ever came to the house."
So basically, someone claimed he had threatened Coleman, and ergo, this automatically negates his right to not only self-defense, but defense of other.
I saw an ad about if you buy at least $2000 worth of some fancy mattress, pillows etc. you could get your choice of a 32” LCD T.V. or a Springfield XD in either 9 mm or .40 caliber. (Texas of course!)
That’s not a threat. That is providing clarification of the law to someone that may not be aware of the Castle Doctrine. I wonder if that same argument could be used against folks who have the “This home protected by Smith & Wesson Security” sign by their door?
I had a conversation with an officer who worked the area about a transient, meth-head I saw all the time around the college where I worked. I made a comment that I would probably have to take him out if he entered one of our buildings. He said absolutely no. Always call the police. They had dealt with him before and he possessed superhuman strength when he was high. He said pepper spray made no impression, so I could imagine hitting center of mass several times on this guy without seeing a change in his demeanor.
Personally, I'd be okay if he reloaded twice in the process of stopping this violent thug from beating a girl. Legally, as long as the criminal was still standing or moving in a potentially threatening manner, as a juror I'd be okay with continuing to shoot until the threat is stopped. As the shooter, I'd responsibly stop as soon as the immediate threat to my life or safety or to that of another was stopped.
The law concerning CCW states that you do not have the right to use a concealed weapon if you instigate a fight, so if you said this on the street your defense would be problematic. But, the Castle Doc. is another matter all together. If someone breaks or attempts to break into your home you have the right to shoot him on the spot. The fact that he broke in would have elevated the threat past his initial warning of what he would do in the future. Just remember know your target, know what's behind your target and have plenty of stopping power.
The law concerning CCW states that you do not have the right to use a concealed weapon if you instigate a fight, so if you said this on the street your defense would be problematic. But, the Castle Doc. is another matter all together. If someone breaks or attempts to break into your home you have the right to shoot him on the spot. The fact that he broke in would have elevated the threat past his initial warning of what he would do in the future. Just remember know your target, know what's behind your target and have plenty of stopping power.
Well, that changes everything doesn’t it? Thank you for the information.
LOL! You made my day. Thank you so much for that posting...still laughing. Husband said it sounded just like something I would say.
Majority of .38 revolvers are 5 shot. Smaller numbers are 6, a few are 7 shot.
So we don’t know how many he had to begin with, if he kept one cylinder empty, and we don’t know if all his shots hit the guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.