Is the Text “She’s Going to Get Her Ass Beat” Enough Provocation to Use Pepper Spray in Self-Defense Against the Sender?

[I]t is well-established that “words alone ‘will not constitute sufficient provocation to incite the use of force in most situations. State v. Jackson, 2024 – Ohio – 2728

State v. Fields

2025 – Ohio – 2248

First District Appellate Court

Hamilton County, Ohio

June 27, 2025

Why is this case important?

The Fields case provides a review of a Self-Defense claim in a Domestic Violence incident. When does a disputant have a valid claim of self-defense when macing the father of her child?

Background

On January 15, 2024, Ms. Hydeia Fields was charged with one count of Domestic Violence in violation of O.R.C. §2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The charge alleged that she assaulted E.A., the father of her child. Ms. Fields timely submitted a notice of self-defense in advance of trial. The notice indicated that Ms. Fields planned to pursue a self-defense defense at trial. It did not set forth any prior incidents of conduct by E.A. that would be introduced in support of Ms. Fields’s planned self-defense case.

Was it Romantic or Just Physical?

Ms. Fields tried her case to the trial court. The evidence at trial established that Ms. Fields and E.A. were previously in a romantic relationship. They had one child together, and Ms. Fields retained sole legal custody after the split. On January 15, 2024, Ms. Fields dropped her daughter, age ten, off at E.A.’s mother’s apartment for a visit.

Belated Christmas Presents

E.A. testified that he and his girlfriend B.H. went to his mother’s apartment around 3:00 p.m. to bring his daughter belated Christmas gifts. Ms. Fields later began texting him. They argued and sent threatening messages to one another. At his mother’s request, E.A. agreed to leave before Ms. Fields picked up their daughter to avoid a confrontation. He and B.H. were on their way out when they encountered Ms. Fields in a vestibule at the front of the apartment building.

Upon Entering the Vestible Ms. Field Mace’s the Father of their Child

According to E.A., he attempted to walk around Ms. Fields, but she confronted him, saying “What’s up[, E.]? What’s that shit you was talking?” Ms. Fields then maced E.A. on the left side of his face and neck, causing irritation and a burning sensation. E.A. estimated that about two seconds elapsed between when he and Ms. Fields simultaneously entered the vestibule and when Ms. Fields sprayed the mace.

Ms. Fields Threw the Newly Received Christmas Gifts to the Ground

E.A. testified that he went outside and called 9-1-1. When Ms. Fields emerged from the building with their daughter about five minutes later, the two adults shouted at one another. According to E.A., Ms. Fields began breaking the Christmas gifts he had just given their daughter and throwing the gifts on the ground. Ms. Fields then got into an Uber with their daughter and left. E.A. remained on the scene and received medical treatment from emergency medical personnel. 

B.H. also testified. She confirmed E.A.’s testimony regarding the confrontation with Ms. Fields in the vestibule. Like E.A., she indicated that Ms. Fields said “What’s up[, E.]? What’s that shit you was talking?” before spraying him with mace.

Ms. Fields Testified She was Angered by the Tardiness of the Christmas Gifts

Ms. Fields’s version of events was only slightly different from E.A.’s. Testifying in her defense, Ms. Fields explained that she received a call from her daughter after dropping her off at the grandmother’s apartment. The daughter shared that E.A. had delivered Christmas gifts. This angered Ms. Fields, both because the gifts were late and because Ms. Fields felt that E.A. relegated his visits with their daughter to his mother’s residence. Ms. Fields texted E.A., and the two exchanged heated messages in which they hurled threats at one another. Ms. Fields decided she would pick her daughter up from the apartment and told E.A. she would not be coming back.

According to Ms. Fields, she arrived at the apartment complex about 45 to 60 minutes later. E.A. and B.H. happened to be on their way out of the building just as Ms. Fields was walking in. The three came face to face in the vestibule.

Ms. Fields was Concerned Because She was Eight to Nine Months Pregnant and the Victim Sent Her a Threatening Text

Ms. Fields, who was eight to nine months pregnant at the time, testified to being startled when she looked up from her phone because she did not expect E.A. to be there. She recalled E.A.’s earlier text message that she “was going to get her ass beat.” She reached for her pepper spray and dispensed the chemical in E.A.’s direction. Ms. Fields then continued past E.A. and B.H. into the building. She retrieved her daughter from the apartment and came back down. E.A. was on the phone with the 9-1-1 dispatcher at the time. Ms. Fields continued to verbally engage with E.A. while she and the child got into an Uber and left.

Guilty Verdict and 179 Suspended Sentence

The trial court found Ms. Fields guilty. It imposed a sentence of 180 days in jail, suspended 179 days, and afforded credit for one day served. The court additionally imposed one year of community control. The sentence was stayed pending appeal, conditioned upon Ms. Fields staying away from E.A.

Appeal – Self Defense

In her first assignment of error, Ms. Fields maintains that the manifest weight of the evidence established that she acted in self-defense, thereby negating her criminal liability for domestic violence.

Domestic Violence

O.R.C. §2919.25

The offense of Domestic Violence is proscribed by O.R.C. §2919.25. The statute provides in pertinent part that “[N]o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member.” O.R.C. §2919.25(A). On appeal, Ms. Fields does not dispute that she knowingly caused physical harm to E.A. by spraying him with pepper spray. Nor does she dispute that E.A. qualifies as a family member because they share a child. Rather, she maintains that the trial court’s rejection of her affirmative defense of self-defense contravened the manifest weight of the evidence.

Established Case Law – Self Defense

The elements of a self-defense claim in a nondeadly force case are “(1) The defendant was not at fault in creating the altercation; (2) The defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that she was in imminent danger of bodily harm; and (3) The only way to protect herself from the danger was using force and she did not use more force than was reasonably necessary to defend herself against the imminent danger of bodily harm.” State v. Ridley, 2022-Ohio-2561, ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). If any one of these cumulative elements is not met, the proponent’s self-defense claim fails.

Under Ohio’s current burden-shifting scheme, the defendant must first produce evidence that tends to support that she acted in self-defense. O.R.C. §2901.05(B)(1). Once the defendant satisfies this initial burden, the burden shifts to the State to disprove at least one of the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-4976, ¶ 49 (1st Dist.).

A Text: “What’s up with that shit you were talking,” is Not Enough to Self-Defend Against a Possible Assault

In announcing its decision, the trial court found that Ms. Fields was at fault in creating the situation and rejected the notion that Ms. Fields had a bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger. The trial court credited the testimony that Ms. Fields initiated a confrontation with E.A. by goading, “What’s up with that shit you were talking,” and macing him. The trial court accordingly rejected Ms. Fields’s claim of self- defense. We scrutinize whether the weight of the evidence supports that conclusion.

 Facts Not in Dispute

Of note, nearly all of the facts that emerged at trial were not in dispute. The parties agree that Ms. Fields willingly brought their daughter to E.A.’s mother’s apartment for a visit and that E.A. and B.H. arrived without Ms. Fields’s advance knowledge to bring belated Christmas gifts. They agree that E.A. and Ms. Fields exchanged contentious text messages that day in which both threatened physical harm against one another. It is undisputed that E.A., B.H., and Ms. Fields unintentionally crossed paths in the vestibule. It is further undisputed that E.A. did not take any aggressive or threatening action towards Ms. Fields in the vestibule, nor did he make any comments to Ms. Fields before she deployed the pepper spray.

More Established Case Law – Self Defense

Regarding the first element of her self-defense claim, Ms. Fields argues the State failed to disprove that she was not at fault in creating the situation. See Ridley, 2022-Ohio-2561, at ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). “[A] person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” State v. Jackson, 2024-Ohio-2728, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.), quoting Smith, 2020-Ohio-4976, at ¶ 53 (1st Dist.). Moreover, one who “willingly advance[s] toward a volatile situation” is deemed at fault for a resultant physical altercation. Id., quoting State v. Sekic, 2011- Ohio-3978, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.). 

[W]ho was at fault for creating the affray?

In arguing that the manifest weight of the evidence disproves her responsibility for the confrontation, Ms. Fields suggests that she had a right to pick up her daughter from the apartment and that her encounter with E.A. and B.H. in the vestibule occurred by happenstance. Both of these observations are true. But neither addresses the question of who was at fault for creating the affray.

Who was the Initial Aggressor?

The initial element of self-defense asks whether the defendant was the initial aggressor or whether she acted to provoke violence by creating the circumstances leading up to the alleged self-defense. See, e.g., State v. Gardner, 2022- Ohio-381, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.) (assessing whether defendant was the initial aggressor in determining the at-fault element of self-defense); State v. Elam, 2022-Ohio-1895, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.) (holding that a defendant “must not be at fault in creating the situation that gave rise to the affray” because “[A] person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense”). At most, Ms. Fields’s arguments demonstrate that she did not provoke a confrontation simply by retrieving her daughter. But this says nothing of whether she was the initial aggressor. 

Court Determines Ms. Fields Acted Offensively not Defensively

The manifest weight of the evidence, and even Ms. Fields’s own testimony, indicates that Ms. Fields acted offensively rather than defensively in spraying E.A. with mace. Merely a few seconds after entering the vestibule, she verbally confronted E.A. and deployed the pepper spray without E.A. having taken any action, verbal or otherwise, towards her. Ms. Fields herself admitted to spraying E.A. moments after encountering him.

[W]ords alone ‘will not constitute sufficient provocation to incite the use of force in most situations.

On this record, E.A.’s text messages earlier in the day are not weighty enough to justify Ms. Fields’s preemptive use of force upon entering the vestibule. For one thing, as this court and others have observed, “words alone ‘will not constitute sufficient provocation to incite the use of force in most situations.’” Jackson, 2024- Ohio-2728, at ¶ 13 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Murray, 2019-Ohio-5459, ¶ 32 (7th Dist.). Ms. Fields points to no other provocation outside of E.A.’s text messages to justify her decision to spray him with mace. The law generally discounts mere words as forming the lawful basis for retaliating with violence.

Text Messages were Not Introduced as Evidence

Even if we thought it appropriate to consider the earlier text messages in weighing whether Ms. Fields was at fault for the confrontation, doing so does not disprove Ms. Fields’s responsibility. The text messages between Ms. Fields and E.A. were not introduced into the record, and as such we are unable to ascertain which person—E.A. or Ms. Fields—made the initial threat. Thus, even if the text messages are taken into account, the manifest weight of the evidence does not undermine the trial court’s conclusion. Moreover, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Ms. Fields initiated a physical confrontation with E.A. by spraying him with mace. The record thus supports the trial court’s determination that Ms. Fields was at fault for the affray.

Final Analysis

The State need only disprove one element of a self-defense claim to carry its burden. State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 191. Because the trial court’s determination that Ms. Fields was at fault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the State met its burden in this case. We therefore need not address whether the trial court’s conclusion that Ms. Fields lacked a bona fide belief that she was in danger was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.

Conclusion and Holding

Weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences and considering the credibility of the witnesses, we hold that the trial court did not clearly lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice in rejecting Ms. Fields’s self-defense claim. Accordingly, we overrule Ms. Fields’s first assignment of error.

Note: There were two other appeals: Admissibility of Ms. Fields knowledge of E.A.’s prior violence against other women and the financial sanctions against Ms. Fields in this case.  Both appeals were denied.  Neither of the appeals will be evaluated in this article.

Information for this article was obtained from State v. Fields, 2025 – Ohio – 2248.

State v. Fields, 2025 – Ohio – 2248 was issued by the First District Appellate Court on June 27, 2025 and is only binding in Hamilton County, Ohio.