The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld the convictions of Damon M. Thompson, affirming his sentences for failure to comply with police orders and for possessing a weapon while under disability. This ruling, issued on May 12, 2026, affects Thompson's future and could have implications for similar cases involving police compliance and firearm regulations.

In the first case, Thompson was charged with failure to comply with an order from a police officer, a third-degree felony. This charge stemmed from an incident in which he allegedly urged the driver of a vehicle, Mytaiza Gordon, to flee from a traffic stop initiated by police. The second case involved a charge of having a weapon while under disability, which was based on Thompson's prior juvenile delinquency adjudications that would have constituted felonies if committed as an adult.

Background

Damon M. Thompson was involved in two separate criminal cases that were consolidated for appeal in the Ohio Court of Appeals. The first case, identified as Franklin County Common Pleas Court case No. 22CR-3408, centered on an incident that occurred on May 27, 2022. During a traffic stop, Thompson was a passenger in a vehicle that failed to stop at a stop sign. When the police officer activated his lights, the driver, Gordon, initially complied but then fled the scene after Thompson encouraged her to do so. The vehicle ultimately crashed into a utility pole, resulting in property damage and endangering the occupants.

In the second case, Franklin County Common Pleas Court case No. 23CR-656, Thompson faced charges for having a weapon while under disability. This charge arose after police executed a search warrant at his residence, where they discovered a loaded handgun. Thompson had previously been adjudicated as a delinquent juvenile for offenses that would have been felonies if committed by an adult, which prohibited him from legally possessing firearms.

The Ruling

The Ohio Court of Appeals, presided over by Judge Dorrian, affirmed the trial court's decisions in both cases. In the first case, the court found that the evidence presented at trial supported the conviction for failure to comply with police orders. The court noted, "Thompson encouraged and incited Gordon to flee from the traffic stop by repeatedly yelling ‘go’ as he jumped back in the car." This statement highlighted the court's view that Thompson's actions constituted complicity in the crime.

In the second case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the law under which Thompson was charged for having a weapon while under disability. The trial court had previously ruled that Thompson was not protected by the Second Amendment due to his prior juvenile adjudications. The appellate court agreed, stating that R.C. 2923.13, which prohibits firearm possession by individuals with certain prior convictions, was consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States.

Impact

The ruling in State v. Thompson is significant for several reasons. First, it reinforces the legal standards surrounding police compliance and complicity in criminal activities. The court's decision affirms that individuals can be held accountable for encouraging or aiding in the commission of a crime, even if they are not the primary actor.

Furthermore, the court's ruling on the Second Amendment implications of firearm possession laws could have lasting effects on similar cases. By upholding the prohibition of firearm possession for individuals with certain prior convictions, the court aligns with historical precedents that allow for such regulations. This could set a precedent for future cases involving firearm rights and the interpretation of the Second Amendment in relation to individuals with criminal histories.

What's Next

Thompson has the option to appeal the ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence ongoing discussions about police authority, public safety, and the rights of individuals with criminal backgrounds.