A trial judge’s misstatement about Ohio’s self-defense law and pretrial ruling to not give a self-defense jury instruction did not invalidate a Hamilton County man's guilty plea, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed Demarco Gowdy’s conviction for aggravated assault stemming from a 2023 shooting at a McDonald’s parking lot in Cincinnati. The Court affirmed a First District Court of Appeals decision which found that the trial judge’s errors did not rise to the level necessary to set aside Gowdy’s guilty plea.

Gowdy argued to the Supreme Court that the judge coerced him into pleading guilty by prematurely deciding not to give a self-defense jury instruction. This decision, Gowdy maintained, rendered his plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary, violating his constitutional rights.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy explained that Rule 11(C) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the process a trial court must use to accept a guilty plea to a felony. The Court generally vacates a guilty plea only if the trial court failed to follow the requirements of 11(C). Despite the trial judge potentially making errors, the judge followed the rules when accepting Gowdy’s plea.

“Gowdy was free to go to trial and request the self-defense jury instruction then, but he did not. The trial court complied with the requirements of Crim. R. 11, and Gowdy has not shown otherwise,” the opinion stated.

Judge, Defendant Discuss Self-Defense Claim at Pretrial Proceeding
Gowdy got into a fight with another man at a McDonald’s parking lot in August 2023. Store surveillance cameras captured the altercation. As the fight progressed, Gowdy drew a gun and shot the other man, injuring him.

Gowdy was indicted on two counts of felonious assault, which included two firearm specifications. Days before the scheduled trial, Gowdy’s defense attorney submitted to the trial court a proposed partial jury instruction, which included a self-defense instruction. On the morning of the trial, the trial judge told Gowdy he was not sure he was going to provide the instruction because he had watched the video and did not think Gowdy could meet the requirements to claim self-defense.

After conferring with his attorney, Gowdy and the judge further discussed the self-defense claim. The judge told Gowdy that from the video, it appeared Gowdy started the altercation and would likely not be able to receive a self-defense instruction.

After a lunch recess, Gowdy returned to court and indicated he would plead guilty to a lesser charge of aggravated assault. A Hamilton County prosecutor informed the court that it would amend the charges and would not oppose a one-year prison term for the assault, along with a three-year firearm specification, for a total of four years in prison.

Defendant Laments Failure to Offer Self-Defense Instruction
The trial judge began the required exchange under Rule 11(C), known as a “colloquy,” with Gowdy to ensure his understanding that a guilty plea is an admission of guilt and that he will be sentenced.

When asked if he was entering the plea voluntarily, Gowdy said he was, but added, “I just feel like we should have left it up to the jury to decide if it was self-defense or not, but I understand.”

The judge responded that Gowdy had to clearly decide if he wanted to go to trial or plead guilty and that he would not let Gowdy feel like he was being coerced into pleading. Gowdy complained that if the judge would not provide the self-defense jury instruction, he was “put in a box” and had no choice but to plead guilty.

The judge and Gowdy continued to discuss the jury instruction, and the judge informed Gowdy that the prosecutor would have the right to oppose offering the self-defense instruction. Gowdy then asked, “Well, I just want to know will they be instructed on self-defense?”

The judge replied, “No.”

“So, I’m in a box, so that’s why I’m taking the plea. I’ll take the plea,” Gowdy said.

Gowdy then pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to four years in prison. He appealed to the First District, which affirmed the trial court’s decision, and then Gowdy appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Plea Requirements
Chief Justice Kennedy explained that a guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary to be accepted by a trial court. A court cannot accept a plea without ensuring it is voluntary and that the defendant understands the charges, the maximum penalty involved, and the effect of the plea, including its effect on the defendant’s rights.

Rule 11(C) specifies the information the trial court must discuss with the defendant during the colloquy to ensure a plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. To vacate a plea, Gowdy had to demonstrate that his colloquy with the judge failed to meet the rule’s requirements, the opinion stated.

Gowdy argued the trial court misstated the law on self-defense and that the judge could not decide whether to give the instruction at the pretrial stage. He claimed those mistakes made his plea unknowing and unintelligent.

Gowdy presented two prior Court decisions that vacated pleas. The Court stated those cases were not similar to Gowdy’s. In one case, a judge’s mistake affected the rights of the accused by misstating the defendant’s right to appeal, violating Rule 11. In the other, the judge misstated the defendant’s eligibility for postrelease control, which failed the rule’s requirement to ensure the defendant understood the nature of the charges and the maximum penalty involved.

None of the trial judge’s statements to Gowdy violated the rules, the opinion stated, because the statements did not obscure Gowdy’s knowledge of the charges against him, the rights he was waiving, or the penalties he faced. And he had multiple opportunities to confer with his lawyer when he had hesitations. So, the Court found Gowdy’s plea knowing and intelligent.

Gowdy claimed his plea was not voluntary because the judge’s errors coerced him into the plea. The Court stated there must be evidence that shows the plea was entered involuntarily. The judge repeatedly sought to ensure that Gowdy did not feel coerced and indicated he had a right to go to trial. The judge also stated that if he was not satisfied that Gowdy‘s plea was voluntary, he would not accept it.

“Gowdy may have been dissatisfied with his choices – either plead guilty to one fourth-degree felony or go to trial, request a self-defense jury instruction, and risk two second-degree felony convictions. But dissatisfaction with his predicament did not render the plea involuntary,” the opinion stated.

2024-0882. State v. Gowdy, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5575.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.