I live in Ohio, like Tonk, myself. I'm EXTREMELY surprised that the castle doctrine, which is a law passed by the last govenor, was not brought up to the police. It sounds to me like this is a text book case that should have guaranteed Tonk didn't get charged with anything.
It felt unfinished not looking up what this was in your state (as I said, for those states that have it, it varies greatly) and I found this:
The
2008 tort-related law states:
"if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of entering or has entered, unlawfully and without privilege to do so, [highlight]the residence[/highlight] [. . .] occupied by the person using the defensive force"
(or vehicle, but that's not at issue here).
So how is "residence" defined?
Section (B)(1)(b)
"'Residence' has the same meaning as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code."
Okay, so how is it defined in
Ohio Revised Code § 2901.05 (the criminal version of the castle doctrine)?
You see they were smart to keep the language basically the same:
"a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, [highlight]the residence[/highlight] [. . .] occupied by the person using the defensive force."
So let's move to the definitions section, which by virtue of being alphabetical is slightly out of order so here are the relevant definitions in order:
2901.05(D)(3)
"[highlight]'Residence' means a dwelling[/highlight] in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as a guest."
2901.05(D)(2)
"[highlight]'Dwelling' means a building[/highlight] or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it and that is designed to be occupied by people lodging in the building or conveyance at night, regardless of whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or is mobile or immobile. As used in this division, a building or conveyance includes, but is not limited to, an attached porch, and a building or conveyance with a roof over it includes, but is not limited to, a tent."
That
doesn't include a yard.
Just a few months ago a newspaper summarized the law as this:
The Ohio legislature updated the law in 2008 to give people an automatic assumption that they acted in self-defense when using lethal force against someone who has illegally entered their home
TonK had no firm legal ground to stand on. He would've been charged with some level of crime, though it would've likely mitigated away from first degree murder or anything like that (it still would've been awful, though). He could've tried to argue that the other guy was in the process of "entering", but that's a mess with no guarantees.
It's analogous to saying: if you're going to drive, you're required to know and follow the laws in your state. If you're going to brandish a deadly weapon, you're certainly required to know and follow the laws in your state.
tl;dr: The yard isn't covered under Castle Doctrine in Ohio and I don't want anyone there getting in trouble over it based on this thread.