The Ohio Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of Antawan Benson for murder and multiple firearm-related charges, following a shooting that resulted in the death of a 12-year-old girl. The court's decision, issued on October 30, 2026, confirms the trial court's findings regarding Benson's competency to stand trial and his obligation to pay restitution to the victim's family.

Benson was convicted of one count of murder, two counts of improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation, two counts of felonious assault, and additional charges related to his possession of firearms while under disability. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 67 to 72.5 years. This ruling is significant as it underscores the legal standards surrounding competency in criminal trials and the responsibilities of convicted individuals regarding restitution.

Background

The case stems from an incident that occurred shortly after midnight on August 23, 2024, when Benson and a co-defendant fired multiple rounds from firearms into several residences in Montgomery County, Ohio. The gunfire struck a duplex and a single-family home, resulting in the tragic death of 12-year-old I.C. while she was in her bedroom. Following the incident, Benson was arrested and charged with a total of twelve counts, including murder and various firearm offenses.

As the case progressed, questions arose regarding Benson's mental competency to stand trial. After a series of evaluations, the trial court ultimately ruled that he was competent to proceed. This decision was contested by Benson, who argued that his mental state impaired his ability to understand the proceedings and assist in his defense.

The Ruling

The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Christopher Epley, upheld the trial court's judgment, affirming Benson's convictions. The court noted that the trial court had conducted a thorough competency hearing, where multiple experts provided conflicting opinions on Benson's mental state. The court stated, "The trial court found Drs. De Marchis and Marciani to be more credible," referring to the experts who concluded that Benson was competent to stand trial.

Additionally, the court addressed Benson's claim regarding the trial court's restitution order. The court found that the trial court had sufficient information to determine Benson's ability to pay restitution of $1,965.98 to I.C.'s father. The ruling emphasized that the trial court had reviewed a presentence investigation report and considered Benson's financial situation before imposing the restitution.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving competency evaluations. It reinforces the principle that a defendant is presumed competent unless proven otherwise and that the burden lies with the defendant to demonstrate incompetence. The court's decision also highlights the importance of thorough evaluations and the trial court's discretion in assessing credibility among experts.

Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the standards for imposing restitution, indicating that trial courts must consider a defendant's ability to pay but are not required to explicitly state their findings on the record. This aspect of the ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the financial obligations of convicted individuals.

What's Next

While Benson's conviction has been upheld, he may still seek further legal recourse through appeals to higher courts, although the chances of success may be limited given the thoroughness of the appellate review. Details regarding any related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.