The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Alex Grafft Massey for felonious assault, affirming a lower court's decision that denied his request for a self-defense jury instruction. This ruling affects Massey, who was sentenced to two to three years in prison for his actions during an altercation at a food pantry in Butler County.
The case, State v. Massey, was filed under docket number CA2026-03-035. The incident occurred on May 19, 2025, when Massey, who was volunteering at the Open Hands Food Pantry, attacked Larry Tye, Jr., after an exchange of words. Massey’s conviction raises questions about self-defense claims in Ohio law and how they are evaluated in court.
The parties involved in the case include the State of Ohio, represented by Butler County Prosecuting Attorney Michael T. Gmoser and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Stephen M. Wagner, and Alex Grafft Massey, defended by attorney John H. Forg. The dispute centers around the events of the altercation, which led to Massey being indicted on two counts of felonious assault.
According to the court documents, the altercation began when Tye, Jr. approached Massey at the food pantry's grill night. Witnesses reported that Massey jumped from his chair, shouted threats, and struck Tye, Jr. on the head. After knocking him down, Massey continued to kick Tye, Jr. while he lay on the ground. The incident escalated when Massey also injured Tye, Jr.'s nephew, Ethan Gray, who tried to intervene.
During the trial, Massey claimed he felt threatened by Tye, Jr. and his father, Larry Tye, Sr. He testified that previous encounters made him fear for his safety, including an incident where a vehicle carrying Tye, Jr. had allegedly tried to run him over. However, witnesses did not report any threats made by Tye, Jr. before the assault.
The jury found Massey guilty of one count of felonious assault against Tye, Jr. but acquitted him of the charge involving Gray. The trial court sentenced Massey to an indefinite term of two to three years in prison.
Massey appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on self-defense. He contended that he was justified in his actions due to the perceived threat from Tye, Jr. The court ruled that the trial court did not err in denying the self-defense instruction, stating that Massey failed to present sufficient evidence of an imminent threat.
Judge Robin N. Piper, writing for the court, stated, "Massey has not satisfied the second element of his self-defense claim: that he faced an imminent danger of bodily harm." The court emphasized that merely feeling threatened is not enough to justify a self-defense claim. The ruling highlighted that a defendant must show they were in immediate danger to warrant the use of force.
The impact of this ruling is significant for future cases involving self-defense claims in Ohio. It reinforces the requirement that defendants must demonstrate an imminent threat to justify their use of force. This decision may influence how similar cases are approached in the future, particularly regarding the standards for self-defense instructions in jury trials.
Looking ahead, Massey has the option to appeal the ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court, although it is unclear if he will pursue this route. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling.