In a recent ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Steven Hagaman for criminal damaging, a second-degree misdemeanor. The decision, made on July 28, 2026, affects Hagaman's legal standing and could influence future self-defense claims in similar cases. The court ruled that Hagaman's actions, which included damaging a vehicle, did not meet the legal standards for self-defense.
The case stems from an incident on June 20, 2024, when a complaint was filed against Hagaman, alleging he caused substantial damage to a vehicle owned by personal injury attorney M.Z. The complaint stated that Hagaman struck the vehicle with his hands and feet, resulting in scratches and a dent. This case was initially filed as case No. 24CRB00500 but was later dismissed and refiled as case No. 25CRB00082.
Hagaman's legal troubles began when he was served with a summons in the first case but later waived his right to a speedy trial. After the case was dismissed, the identical complaint was refiled. The timeline of events included multiple continuances and a trial that ultimately took place on August 27, 2025. During the trial, both Hagaman and M.Z. provided differing accounts of the incident, with M.Z. claiming Hagaman kicked his car after a confrontation at Hagaman's home.
The trial court found Hagaman guilty of criminal damaging, stating that he failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a self-defense claim. The court noted, "The long and the short of it, though, is you’ve got a car that’s driving away, whether it’s paused or not, that got kicked. There’s no self-defense there." This ruling emphasized that Hagaman's actions did not constitute a legitimate claim of self-defense, as he had not demonstrated an imminent threat to his safety.
Judge Christine E. Mayle, along with Judges Myron C. Duhart and Charles E. Sulek, concurred in the decision. The court's ruling affirmed the lower court's findings and dismissed Hagaman's arguments regarding personal jurisdiction, speedy trial rights, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The ruling has significant implications for Hagaman, who was sentenced to 90 days in jail, with 60 days suspended, and two years of probation. He was also ordered to pay restitution of $1,323.60 to M.Z. The court found that Hagaman's claims of self-defense were not supported by the evidence presented during the trial.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Hagaman, as it clarifies the standards for self-defense in Ohio. Future defendants in similar situations may find it more challenging to assert self-defense if their actions do not meet the established legal criteria. The court's emphasis on the necessity of proving an imminent threat to justify the use of force could set a precedent for future cases.
Hagaman's legal team has indicated that they may consider further legal options, including an appeal to a higher court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing.