Background
On the night of July 7, 2024, Exco Kennedy stabbed his neighbor’s boyfriend, R.M., with a nine-inch survival knife on a public sidewalk in Montgomery County, Ohio. The altercation grew out of a dispute over a missing motorcycle helmet piece that Kennedy had been aggressively pressing with neighbor Stanley. Kennedy armed himself, paced in front of Stanley’s home for nearly five minutes, and loudly demanded that R.M. “bring his punk ass outside so we can settle it.” When R.M. came out in boxer shorts and approached the sidewalk, Kennedy drew the knife and stabbed him in the abdomen. Kennedy then pushed the fallen R.M. to the ground and punched him eight times in the back of the head and neck. R.M. died the following morning from sharp-force abdominal trauma. Kennedy was arrested at the scene and methamphetamine was recovered from his sock at the hospital.
Kennedy was indicted on two counts of proximate-result murder (R.C. 2903.02(B)), two counts of felonious assault, and tampering with evidence (“A Indictment”), as well as a separate count of aggravated possession of drugs (“B Indictment”). Before trial, Kennedy sought to plead guilty to the drug charge and exclude any mention of the drugs from the murder trial; the trial court denied exclusion, finding the drug evidence relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. Kennedy pleaded guilty to the B Indictment and proceeded to a jury trial on the A Indictment, raising self-defense. The jury convicted him of both murder counts and both felonious assault counts. After merger, the trial court sentenced him to a mandatory 15 years to life for murder, concurrent with 12 months for drug possession.
Kennedy appealed on three grounds: (1) the jury’s rejection of self-defense was against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the methamphetamine evidence; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed the conviction on all three assignments of error. On the self-defense claim, the court found that the State disproved both the “not-at-fault” and “bona fide belief of imminent danger” elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Kennedy himself summoned R.M. outside, equipped with a large knife and gloves, and surveillance video showed R.M.’s hands were at his sides and empty when Kennedy stabbed him. Because Kennedy was the initial aggressor and his use of force was preemptive rather than responsive, the jury did not lose its way in rejecting self-defense.
On the evidentiary issue, the court held that the methamphetamine possession was properly admitted under Evid.R. 404(B) not to show propensity, but for the specific non-propensity purpose of rebutting Kennedy’s own theory that he feared R.M. because R.M. was on drugs. Kennedy’s possession of methamphetamine at the time of the stabbing made it more probable that Kennedy himself was under the influence, which bore directly on whether his claimed belief of imminent danger was reasonable and honest. The court also found the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly because the entire stabbing was captured on video and Kennedy conceded at trial that he had used drugs that day.
On the ineffective-assistance claim, the court held that counsel was not deficient for failing to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction because the record did not support such an instruction. Kennedy had provoked the confrontation and R.M. had not engaged in any physical contact before being stabbed, negating the “serious provocation by the victim” element required under R.C. 2903.03(A). Counsel cannot be faulted for not requesting an instruction the defendant was not entitled to receive.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who provokes a confrontation by arming himself, issuing a challenge, and summoning the victim outside forfeits the “not-at-fault” element of self-defense; preemptive deadly force cannot be justified as self-defense under Ohio law.
- Drug evidence otherwise governed by Evid.R. 404(B) may be admitted without implicating the propensity bar when the defendant’s own theory of self-defense places the victim’s drug use at issue—making the defendant’s concurrent drug possession relevant to the defendant’s state of mind and credibility.
- Trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to request a lesser or inferior-degree instruction (here, voluntary manslaughter) where the record lacks evidentiary support for the instruction’s required elements; a tactical decision not to pursue an instruction the defendant cannot earn is not deficient performance.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how tightly Ohio’s self-defense framework scrutinizes the initial-aggressor question. Courts will look holistically at a defendant’s conduct in the lead-up to a killing—not just the final seconds—and video evidence capturing that buildup is increasingly decisive. Kennedy’s own pre-confrontation actions (arming, pacing, issuing challenges) precluded the self-defense claim even before the jury evaluated the moment of the stabbing.
The ruling also offers a practical model for prosecutors navigating Evid.R. 404(B) in self-defense cases: when a defendant claims the victim’s drug use heightened his reasonable fear, the State may respond by introducing evidence of the defendant’s own drug use as directly relevant to the reasonableness and honesty of his claimed fear—without running afoul of the propensity bar—so long as the evidence is tied to a specific, articulated non-propensity purpose.