Background
This consolidated appeal addresses two separate criminal matters. In the first case (22CR-3408), Thompson and another driver were stopped for a traffic violation on May 27, 2022. After police asked Thompson to exit the vehicle, he immediately jumped back inside and shouted “Go! Go! Go!” at the driver, who then accelerated and fled. The vehicle crashed into a telephone pole within a short distance, deploying airbags and destroying the utility pole. Thompson fled the crash scene on foot. A jury convicted Thompson of failure to comply with a police officer’s order under a complicity theory, finding that his verbal encouragement incited the driver to flee and caused substantial risk of serious physical harm.
In the second case (23CR-656), police obtained a search warrant for Thompson’s Instagram account after he was suspected of involvement in a shooting. They found videos and images of Thompson holding handguns and a rifle. Detectives discovered that Thompson had prior juvenile delinquency adjudications for violent felonies and drug-related offenses. A subsequent search warrant of his residence uncovered a loaded handgun in his bedroom closet, which Thompson admitted was his. He was charged with having a weapon while under disability under R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (A)(3), statutes prohibiting firearm possession by persons previously adjudicated delinquent for felony acts of violence or drug-related felonies.
The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of 36 months and 18 months, both suspended in favor of 60 months of community control. Thompson appealed on two grounds: that the evidence for the flight conviction was insufficient, and that R.C. 2923.13 violated his Second Amendment rights as applied to him.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District affirmed both convictions. On the flight charge, the court rejected Thompson’s argument that he merely closed a car door after the driver initiated the escape. The evidence established that Thompson verbally encouraged and incited the driver to flee by repeatedly shouting “go” as he jumped back into the vehicle. Under Ohio’s complicity statute, this conduct—supporting, assisting, and encouraging the principal offender while sharing the criminal intent—was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The court analogized to similar cases where passengers’ verbal exhortations to drivers to flee from police constituted accomplice liability.
On the Second Amendment challenge, the court applied the two-step framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen and refined in United States v. Rahimi. Under Bruen/Rahimi, a court first determines whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue, and if so, whether the government can demonstrate the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. While the court acknowledged that the Second Amendment’s plain text does not explicitly distinguish between felons and non-felons, longstanding historical prohibitions on firearm possession by persons deemed dangerous—dating back to English common law and early American history—support restrictions on those with prior violent felony adjudications. The court cited Heller’s recognition of “presumptively lawful” prohibitions on firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill, and Rahimi’s affirmation that the nation’s firearm regulation tradition includes provisions disarming individuals who present danger to others. The conviction was therefore affirmed as consistent with Second Amendment principles.
Key Takeaways
- Accomplice liability for flight from police can be sustained through verbal encouragement and incitement, not merely passive presence or minimal conduct.
- The Bruen/Rahimi framework for Second Amendment challenges focuses on whether a modern regulation is “relevantly similar” to historical firearm restrictions, not on means-ends scrutiny.
- Longstanding English and American common-law traditions of disarming persons deemed dangerous support firearm prohibitions on those with prior violent felony adjudications.
- Heller’s recognition of “presumptively lawful” felon-in-possession statutes and Rahimi’s principle that governments may disarm those who threaten physical safety to others remain good law under modern Second Amendment doctrine.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the application of complicity doctrine in vehicular flight cases, establishing that a passenger’s verbal encouragement to a driver to flee from police constitutes sufficient conduct and intent to support a conviction. For practitioners defending flight charges, this narrows the argument that only the driver bears responsibility. The case also confirms that Ohio’s felon-in-possession statutes survive Second Amendment scrutiny post-Bruen, addressing a significant constitutional question that has generated split authority in other circuits.
The decision’s engagement with Bruen and Rahimi is particularly significant for Ohio practitioners. By anchoring R.C. 2923.13’s felon-in-possession prohibition in centuries of English and American common-law tradition of disarming dangerous persons, the court signals that categorical prohibitions on firearm possession remain viable under modern Second Amendment doctrine when supported by historical analogs. This framework may provide guidance in other Second Amendment challenges to Ohio firearms regulations and offers precedent for defending longstanding felon-in-possession laws against constitutional attack.