Mr. Helmondollar’s decision to shoot Roe in the back was deadly force and was disproportionate to the threat he faced under these circumstances.
State v. Helmondollar
2024 – Ohio – 2077
Fifth District Appellate Court
Licking County, Ohio
May 29, 2024
Romantic Rivalry and Grammatically Incorrect but Profane Text Messages
Jane Doe is Mr. Nathan Helmondollar’s ex-girlfriend. She was “exploring a romantic relationship” with Sam Roe, an acquaintance of Mr. Helmondollar’s. The two men developed a rivalry over Jane Doe and exchanged antagonistic text messages in the days preceding the shooting giving rise to the instant case. Roe’s texts to Mr. Helmondollar included, “Wait till I see you bitch boy,” “See the thing is wait till I see you[,] Gaine the fuck over;” “what are you waiting on bitch;” “I bet you don’t show up, where the fuck are you;” and “Come square up lets see whos a bitch” (sic throughout). Roe agreed the texts amounted to an invitation to come over and fight, although he never intended to act on the threats and only sought to scare Mr. Helmondollar.
Drinking, Marijuana and the Arrival of Mr. Helmondollar
On March 4, 2021, Doe and Roe spent the day together and then went to a friend’s house where Roe drank and smoked marijuana. Around 9:00 p.m., they heard Mr. Helmondollar arrive outside on his motorcycle. Jane Doe went outside and spoke to Mr. Helmondollar, then told Roe she was leaving with Mr. Helmondollar.
Shot in the Back but the Bullet Popped Out
Roe gathered his things in a backpack and left the house. The backpack was over his shoulder and a cigarette was in his hand. As Roe walked past Mr. Helmondollar, Mr. Helmondollar said “hey pal” and shot Roe once in the right center of his back. Roe testified he was angry after he was shot and tried to push over Mr. Helmondollar’s motorcycle, but did not have the energy to do so and fell to the ground. The gunshot wound was located in the right center of Roe’s back, with the bullet lodged just below the skin. Later at the hospital, the bullet “popped out” on its own.
Witness #1
Witness 1 lived in the same apartment complex and was looking out her window watching for her husband. She noticed two men outside near a car and a motorcycle. One man turned sideways and appeared to be smoking a cigarette. The other man raised a gun and shot the other man once. Witness 1’s windows were closed and she did not hear any conversation, but the men did not appear to fight prior to the shooting. Witness 1 did not observe the victim to have any weapons and he did not appear to threaten the shooter. The shooter fled and Witness 1 called 911; the call was played by appellee at trial. Witness 1 testified she had a clear view of events.
Witness #2
Witness 2 also lived in the apartment complex and went outside after she heard a gunshot, in time to see a motorcycle drive away. Witness 2 assisted the victim and stayed with him until police arrived.
Knife Necklace
Roe told Officer Lewis, one of the first on scene, that Mr. Helmondollar shot him. Officer Lewis removed a knife from a sheath hanging on a necklace around Roe’s neck.
Protruding Bullet and Shell Casing
Roe also told Officer Thomas that Mr. Helmondollar shot him. Officer Thomas checked Roe’s wounds and observed a bullet protruding from the area of his left rib cage. Thomas also found a shell casing next to Roe’s foot and collected it as evidence, noting the location indicated Roe was likely close to the shooter.
Taurus 709
A police weapons expert testified Mr. Helmondollar’s firearm was a Taurus 709 Slim nine-millimeter single-stack handgun designed to be concealed, although he didn’t know whether the firearm was concealed in this case.
Nate’s Mom’s House
Mr. Helmondollar fled after the shooting and police eventually tracked him to his mother’s house, where they initiated surveillance and eventually arrested Mr. Helmondollar on a traffic stop.
Why are the Police at Nate Mom’s House?
Police interviewed Mr. Helmondollar at the department and the interview was one of appellee’s exhibits at trial. Mr. Helmondollar at first claimed to have no idea why he was there. Police asked if he was at the apartment, and he first claimed he picked up Jane Doe and left; Mr. Helmondollar said Roe was a “stalker” who held Doe against her will and he heard through Doe that Roe “got messed up.”
Mr. Helmondollar’s Self Defense Story
When police told Mr. Helmondollar they already spoke to witnesses at the scene, Mr. Helmondollar admitted shooting Roe. He said Jane Doe went back inside the apartment to get her bag and Roe came out, charging at Mr. Helmondollar. Roe spit in Mr. Helmondollar’s face and mumbled that Doe was leaving with him instead. Mr. Helmondollar claimed Roe shouldered him to the side and rammed his motorcycle, damaging the turn signal. Mr. Helmondollar further claimed Roe then lunged at him with his right hand from about three feet away, causing him to draw his firearm and shoot Roe in self-defense because he was in fear. Mr. Helmondollar believed he shot Roe in the left side. Mr. Helmondollar said Jane Doe and others came outside in a panic, and he and Doe rode off on his motorcycle.
Mr. Helmondollar stated he was “open carrying” the firearm on a belt clip, although he admittedly did not have a concealed-carry permit. After the shooting, he put the gun in his pocket when he rode away.
Self Defense Story Does Not Match Physical Evidence
Detectives testified Mr. Helmondollar’s statement did not match the physical evidence, including the entrance wound to Roe’s back. Mr. Helmondollar’s account omitted the fact that he shot Roe in the back.
Recovery of the Taurus Firearm
Mr. Helmondollar told detectives he kept the firearm in a safe in his bedroom and gave them the passcode to access the safe. Police also found rifles in Mr. Helmondollar’s bedroom which would not fit in the safe.
Too Impaired to be Witnesses
Newark Police Detective Ryan Fumi testified that police attempted to interview friends at the apartment on the night of the incident, but some of them were too intoxicated to interview. The detective speculated some were under the influence of some type of drug and were behaving as though they used methamphetamine.
Mr. Roe’s Statement
Detective Farmer interviewed Roe in the ambulance after the shooting. Roe said he was trying to start a relationship with Jane Doe and Mr. Helmondollar arrived. Roe said he was attempting to remove himself from the situation to avoid a confrontation but Mr. Helmondollar shot him in the back.
Indicted – Felonious Assualt, CCW and Improper Handling in a MV
Mr. Helmondollar was charged by indictment with one count of felonious assault pursuant to O.R.C. §2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the second degree [Count I]; one count of carrying concealed weapons pursuant to O.R.C. §2923.12(A)(2), a felony of the fourth degree [Count II]; and one count of improper handling of firearms in a motor vehicle pursuant to O.R.C. §2923.16(B), a felony of the fourth degree. All three counts of the indictment were accompanied by firearm specifications.
Jury Trial – Guilty – Eight to Ten and a Half Years in Prison
Mr. Helmondollar entered pleas of not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial by jury. Mr. Helmondollar was found guilty as charged and sentenced to a total aggregate prison term of 8 to 101⁄2 years, including a mandatory 3-year consecutive sentence for the (merged) firearm specifications.
Three Appeals are Denied
Note: Mr. Helomondollar filed three appeals; 1) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 2) Felonious Assault Conviction is Against the Weight of the Evidence and 3) His prison sentence was violative of the Reagan Tokes law. All three appeals were deined but this article will only evaluate the second appeal.
Mr. Helmondollar’s Self Defense Appeal
In his second assignment of error, Mr. Helmondollar argues his felonious assault conviction is against the weight of the evidence because he acted in self-defense. We disagree.
Did Mr. Helmondollar’s Behavior Exempt him from Criminal Liability?
Mr. Helmondollar challenges his conviction upon one count of felonious assault pursuant to O.R.C. §2903.11(A)(2), which provides that no person shall cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance. When an accused asserts the defense of self-defense, he does not seek to negate any of the elements of the offense which appellee is required to prove. Self-defense is an admission of the prohibited conduct coupled with a claim that the surrounding facts or circumstances exempt the accused from liability therefor— “justification for admitted conduct.” State v. Watson, supra, 2023-Ohio-3137.
Self Defense Statute
O.R.C. §2901.05(B)(1) Self-Defense statute; provides as follows regarding self-defense: (B)(1) A person is allowed to act in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence. If, at the trial of a person who is accused of an offense that involved the person’s use of force against another, there is evidence presented that tends to support that the accused person used the force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person did not use the force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence, as the case may be.
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Trial Court
In the instance case, at the close of Mr. Helmondollar’s jury trial, the trial court provided the jury with an instruction regarding self-defense, which means that the trial court concluded that the record contained evidence that tends to support that Mr. Helmondollar used the force in self-defense when he shot Sam Roe. The guilty verdict means appellee met its burden of persuading the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Helmondollar was not acting in self-defense when he shot Roe.
Three Elements of Self Defense
When deadly force is used, the elements of self-defense that appellee must now disprove at least one of are: (1) Mr. Helmondollar was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray, (2) Mr. Helmondollar had reasonable grounds to believe and an honest belief even if mistaken that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he did not use more force than necessary to defend against the attack, and (3) Mr. Helmondollar must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger. Watson, supra, 2023-Ohio-3137, ¶ 84, citing State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74, 79, 388 N.E.2d 755 (1979).
Stand Your Ground
As to the third element of self-defense, “a person has no duty to retreat before using self-defense * * * if that person is in a place in which the person lawfully has a right to be.” O.R.C. §2901.09(B); “Simply put, the new ‘stand your ground’ law removes, in most cases, the duty to retreat before using self-defense.” Watson, supra, ¶ 85, citing State v. Robinette, 2023- Ohio-5.
Mr. Helmondollar was not within Imminent Danger
Here, the evidence does not support Mr. Helmondollar’s contention that he possessed the necessary objective and subjective beliefs he was in imminent or immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. He points to the threatening texts exchanged with Sam Roe on the day preceding the shooting. Generally, neither words alone nor fear itself will constitute evidence of serious provocation.
Mr. Helmondollar further asserts Roe “pushed him out of the way” and “slammed into his motorcycle.” A victim’s simple pushing or punching does not constitute sufficient provocation to incite the use of deadly force in most situations.
Use of Self Defense must be Proportionate to the Perceived Threat
Implicit in the second element of self-defense is the requirement that the degree of force used was warranted under the circumstances and proportionate to the perceived threat. As to the degree of force that is permitted, the defendant is privileged to use the amount of force that is reasonably necessary to repel the attack. State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St. 3d 247, 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990).
Mr. Helmondollar demonstrated only verbal threats
Mr. Helmondollar demonstrated only verbal threats made by Roe prior to Mr. Helmondollar’s use of deadly force. Witness 1 testified Roe was standing near Mr. Helmondollar smoking a cigarette, and when he turned sideways, Mr. Helmondollar shot him. Witness 1 did not observed any aggression from Roe toward Mr. Helmondollar. Roe was not armed; although he had a sheathed knife in a necklace around his neck, he never brandished it and the knife was removed from the sheath by police.
Mr. Helmondollar’s decision to shoot Roe in the back was deadly force and was disproportionate
If Mr. Helmondollar’s fear was only of physical harm, he was allowed by law only to use an amount of force that was warranted under the circumstances and proportionate to the perceived threat. Watson, supra, 2023-Ohio-3137. Mr. Helmondollar’s decision to shoot Roe in the back was deadly force and was disproportionate to the threat he faced under these circumstances.
[T]here is substantial evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Helmondollar was not acting in self-defense when he shot Roe
While Mr. Helmondollar was free to argue that he was justified in using deadly force, and the trial court instructed the jury accordingly, the jury may have reasonably chosen to reject his argument. Upon careful consideration of the record in its entirety, we find that there is substantial evidence presented which if believed, proves all the elements of the crimes for which Mr. Helmondollar was convicted. We further find there is substantial evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Helmondollar was not acting in self-defense when he shot Roe and the degree of force used by Mr. Helmondollar was unwarranted under the circumstances and disproportionate to the perceived threat.
Conclusion and Holding
Therefore, in light of the evidence discussed above, as well as the record in its entirety, we do not find the jury clearly lost its way in finding Mr. Helmondollar guilty of felonious assault and that Mr. Helmondollar was not acting in self-defense. We do not find that the jury disregarded or overlooked compelling evidence that weighed against conviction.
Mr. Helmondollar’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Helmondollar, 2024 – Ohio – 2077.
State v. Helmondollar, 2024 – Ohio – 2077 was issued by the Fifth District Appellate Court and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas.
Lessons Learned:
- Self-Defense Doctrine – In order for a person to claim self-defense his behaviors must comport with a three-part test established by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1979: (1) Defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray, (2) Defendant had reasonable grounds to believe and an honest belief even if mistaken that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he did not use more force than necessary to defend against the attack, and (3) Defendant must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger. State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74, 79 (1979). The third element was modified on April 6, 2021 by the state legislature when it updated O.R.C. §2901.09 (B) the Self-Defense statute that states in pertinent part “[A] person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence if that person is in a place in which the person lawfully has a right to be.”. So, here Mr. Roe or Mr. Helmondollar had no duty to retreat.
- Facts Opposed Mr. Helmondollar’s Legal Claim – I do not believe this was a difficult case for the jury, trial judge or the Fifth District Appellate Court. At no time did Mr. Roe threaten Mr. Helmondollar with great bodily harm or an attack that would lead to imminent danger of death. Therefore, when Mr. Helmondollar shot Mr. Roe in the back with a firearm, it was not proportional to grammatically incorrect, yet profane, text messaging threats.
- Self-Defense During Civil Unrest – When a suspect claims self-defense, law enforcement must focus on how the ‘affray’ … or fight began and if the force was proportional to defend the attack. Application of this doctrine becomes very challenging when there is substantial civil unrest and rioters surround vehicles trying to harm the occupants. If the driver drives through crowds to escape is this ‘proportional’ to defend against the attack?
Does your agency train on the Self-Defense Doctrine?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!