Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ohio Supreme Court sends Castle Doctrine case of Carl Kozlosky back to trial court
cleveland.com ^ | 2 February, 2012 | Pat Galbincea

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: banglist; castle; court; oh
18 years to life for shooting a convicted felon who broke into your house and is beating on a guest?

Even if this was a domestic, was there more to the story? Did the girlfreind claim that it was "just an argument"?

1 posted on 02/03/2012 11:39:51 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Wait a minute. There has to be more to this story.


2 posted on 02/03/2012 11:43:25 AM PST by DallasSun (Courage~Fear that has said its prayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave

FYI


3 posted on 02/03/2012 11:45:24 AM PST by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“....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.


4 posted on 02/03/2012 12:02:01 PM PST by JoeDetweiler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeDetweiler
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.

5 posted on 02/03/2012 12:06:59 PM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


6 posted on 02/03/2012 12:09:29 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; DallasSun
Lots more to the story. trial document. From the transcript, Kozlosky made the mistake of renting to a girl who was a crack addict. The boyfriend also was a crackhead, as well as a felon who killed a guy in 1990. Kozlosky evicts the boyfriend because he's tired of the fighting. Boyfriend comes back, assaults girlfriend (Kozlosky's tenant) and Kozlosky shoots him. Kozlosky seems to mainly have gotten nailed over continuing to shoot Coleman several times after Coleman went down.

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.

7 posted on 02/03/2012 12:15:28 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (I'd agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Sounds like the defendant is a scumbag as well, but even scumbags have the right of self defense.

Nope, defendant was not a scumbag. He's reportedly a community college professor, as well as a United States Air Force veteran.

8 posted on 02/03/2012 12:18:34 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (I'd agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun
The appellate judges wrote in their opinion Kozlosky had recently learned Coleman had killed a man in 1990, had a concealed weapon conviction and had personally observed Coleman’s violent behavior towards McNaughton. The judges wrote given that knowledge, “Kozlosky’s belief that he was in imminent danger was well founded.”

How stupid can someone be to convict this guy?

9 posted on 02/03/2012 12:20:06 PM PST by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JoeDetweiler
...when he emptied his .38-caliber revolver into Coleman>>>

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!

10 posted on 02/03/2012 12:21:13 PM PST by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun
From original news story on the shooting:

"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.

11 posted on 02/03/2012 12:23:00 PM PST by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

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!)


12 posted on 02/03/2012 12:35:04 PM PST by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

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?


13 posted on 02/03/2012 12:38:02 PM PST by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; TexasRedeye; Pollster1; JoeDetweiler

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.


14 posted on 02/03/2012 12:50:16 PM PST by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Changing your reply to how I would do it.

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.

15 posted on 02/03/2012 12:57:03 PM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
and ergo, this automatically negates his right to not only self-defense, but defense of other.

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.

16 posted on 02/03/2012 1:00:20 PM PST by Recon Dad (Gas & Petroleum Junkie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
and ergo, this automatically negates his right to not only self-defense, but defense of other.

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.

17 posted on 02/03/2012 1:00:46 PM PST by Recon Dad (Gas & Petroleum Junkie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

Well, that changes everything doesn’t it? Thank you for the information.


18 posted on 02/03/2012 1:34:04 PM PST by DallasSun (Courage~Fear that has said its prayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

LOL! You made my day. Thank you so much for that posting...still laughing. Husband said it sounded just like something I would say.


19 posted on 02/03/2012 1:35:56 PM PST by DallasSun (Courage~Fear that has said its prayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JoeDetweiler

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.


20 posted on 02/03/2012 2:51:33 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

Because 18 wasn’t enough to stop the threat, and 20 would have been more than necessary.


21 posted on 02/03/2012 2:52:49 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

States and municipalities have to be liable for all costs and attorney fees in these castle doctrine / home cases.

the case NEVER should have been brought.

since prosecutors will not learn, then they should be forced to pay out of their budgets until they learn.


22 posted on 02/03/2012 2:54:59 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Sounds like a T.E.D. ......

Threat elimination drill.


23 posted on 02/03/2012 4:00:15 PM PST by mormonsniper (If my flag annoys you, you are the enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson