Background
East Cleveland police officer Ian W. McInnes was tried on charges arising from four encounters in which he allegedly used excessive force. The jury convicted him of offenses involving Zievan Foster, Wayne Brown, and Da’Shawn Allen, including attempted felonious assault arising from Brown’s arrest. It acquitted him of charges involving Bernard Bennett and certain other charges.
The trial court imposed concurrent terms totaling 30 months in prison. McInnes argued on appeal that the state had to prove his force was unreasonable, that qualified immunity barred the prosecution, and that the court committed evidentiary, confrontation, Garrity, grand-jury, sufficiency, weight-of-the-evidence, and sentencing errors.
The Court’s Holding
Sitting en banc, the Eighth District held that a police officer who claims force was reasonable in performing official duties bears the burden of proving that affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Ohio Revised Code 2901.05 places that burden on defendants for affirmative defenses except self-defense, defense of another, and defense of residence; reasonable police force is not among those exceptions. The court vacated its prior panel decision and overruled State v. Graham only insofar as Graham said the state had to prove an officer’s force was unreasonable.
The merit panel affirmed all challenged convictions and the sentence. Qualified immunity applies to civil damages claims, not criminal prosecutions. The court also held that the trial court properly admitted the challenged lay and expert use-of-force testimony, that the evidence supported the convictions, that no Confrontation Clause or Garrity violation occurred, and that McInnes showed no particularized need for grand-jury transcripts.
Key Takeaways
- In the Eighth District, reasonable use of force by an officer is an affirmative defense that the officer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Qualified immunity does not shield police officers from Ohio criminal prosecution for alleged excessive-force offenses.
- Video evidence and use-of-force testimony supported convictions involving Foster, Brown, and Allen.
Why It Matters
The en banc ruling resolves an intra-district conflict over who bears the burden on an officer’s reasonable-force defense. Prosecutors still must prove every offense element beyond a reasonable doubt, but an officer invoking justification based on reasonable force must establish it.
The decision also underscores that civil immunities do not supply a defense to criminal charges alleging excessive police force.