43
Man charged in Tuesday morning shooting was subject of Monday castle-doctrine ruling
By Ed Runyan
WARREN
Daniel Chipps, the man charged with felonious assault in an early Tuesday shooting on South Feederle Drive Southeast, was also the subject of a May 2016 assault case at that same address that tested the boundaries of the castle doctrine.
The castle doctrine is the unofficial name for a part of Ohio law that says if someone breaks into your occupied home or temporary habitation, or your occupied car, you “have an initial presumption that you may act in self-defense and you will not be second-guessed by the state, according to the Buckeye Firearms Association.”
The castle doctrine also has been cited in connection with the Feb. 25 shooting deaths of two people and wounding of three others at the home of Nasser Hamad of state Route 46 in Howland. Hamad is charged with two counts of aggravated murder and several counts of attempted aggravated murder but claimed he was acting in self-defense.
Chipps, 32, of South Feederle and various other addresses, was convicted of assault in Warren Municipal Court in November 2016 for a May 8, 2016, confrontation with the stepgrandfather of his girlfriend.
Police said Thomas Trunick, 59, of Warren went to his stepgranddaughter’s South Feederle apartment to talk to her about money.
Chipps came out of the apartment and attacked Trunick, hitting him numerous times, Trunick told police. Trunick had a cut between his eyes, his glasses were broken and he had a cut to his elbow, police said.
After being convicted in Warren Municipal Court, Chipps appealed the decision, but the 11th District Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, according to a ruling released Monday.
The ruling says Trunick went to the woman’s home regarding a $1,700 loan she owed Trunick’s wife.
Trunick held the screen door and knocked on the interior door. The municipal court determined that Trunick was yelling and pounding loudly on the door.
The pounding at 8 a.m. awoke his stepgranddaughter, and she spoke to Trunick through the door. Chipps stood behind her.
The municipal court determined that Trunick pushed open the interior door after the woman asked him to leave, but he never entered the apartment during the discussion that ensued, the appeals court said.
When Trunick pushed open the door, Chipps became angry and struck Trunick multiple times, the appeals court said.
Chipps argued that he had the right to use physical force to defend against a criminal trespass into his girlfriend’s home, where he was a residing guest, as spelled out in the part of Ohio law referred to as the castle doctrine.
Because Trunick never entered the apartment, “the ‘castle doctrine’ simply does not apply,” the appeals court said.
The municipal court judge found that Chipps did not have reasonable grounds to believe, nor did he have an honest belief even if he were mistaken, that his girlfriend was in imminent danger of bodily harm, the appeals court said.
“There was absolutely no testimony that [Chipps’ girlfriend] was ever in imminent danger of bodily harm, that [his girlfriend] believed she was in imminent danger of bodily harm, or that [Chipps] had reason to believe [his girlfriend] was in imminent danger of bodily harm,” the appeals court said.