Law360 (September 30, 2026, 5:57 PM EDT) -- A divided Ohio Supreme Court has upheld a man's conviction for firing a gun and hitting his neighbor's house, finding that the man could not prove that the trial court's failure to provide a self-defense instruction — which he had not requested — was an obvious error.

The state's high court voted 7-1 to keep Timothy Damien Bradley's conviction in place for discharging a firearm into a habitation, finding that even though an appeals court ordered a new trial, there was no evidence that the outcome would have been different with the omitted instruction.

"We conclude that Bradley did not establish that the trial court's failure to give the unrequested instruction on transferred self-defense was plain error," Justice Joseph T. Deters said in the opinion. "The error was not plain because current law did not clearly require the instruction. And Bradley did not demonstrate that the alleged error affected his substantial rights."

The shooting occurred after Bradley fired his contractor, Zachary Burch, via text message from a project at one of Bradley's homes. Burch went to the property to retrieve some tools that had been left behind, and the two men got into an argument, the majority opinion said.

Security footage of the argument taken from a neighbor's house shows that both men were armed, but that Burch never touched his weapon during the incident. The opinion said Burch made verbal threats during the argument.

Burch left the home to put an air compressor in his car, and when he returned, Bradley fired his gun, hitting Burch five times. Burch then fled from the home and Bradley followed, though he did not fire any more shots from his gun, the opinion said.

Prosecutors allege that two of the bullets from the shooting struck two other homes, and a neighbor would later testify that one of the bullets hit her home. Prosecutors charged Bradley with felonious assault and two counts of discharging a firearm into a habitation, the opinion said.

Bradley claimed at trial that Burch made a motion during the argument that indicated he was likely going to grab his gun. The trial court provided the jury with a self-defense instruction and defined "privilege" for the jury under Ohio state law, the opinion said.

Bradley's attorney argued during closing arguments that Bradley had privilege to shoot into his neighbors' homes because he was acting in self-defense. The jury ultimately acquitted Bradley of the felonious assault and found him guilty on the discharging a firearm counts, the opinion said.

An Ohio appeals court overturned Bradley's two firearms convictions, finding one lacked sufficient evidence, and the other over the lack of a "transferred self-defense" instruction. Bradley argued the jury should have been told that self-defense supplied the 'privilege' element relevant to the habitation charges.

Prosecutors appealed the reversal to the state supreme court, arguing that the trial court correctly instructed the jury and the conviction should be reinstated. The high court's majority ruled that because Bradley did not object to the language during trial, the court could review the case only for plain error in the trial court's instructions, the opinion said.

The high court ruled that even if the trial court in Bradley's case made an error in the instruction, it was not a "plain error" and did not warrant a new trial. The majority also said that Bradley was unable to point to sufficient case law holding that not providing the transferred self-defense language was an error.

Justice Jennifer Brunner was the lone dissenting voice, saying she would have allowed the appeals court ruling to remain in place. The dissent said that the error was "obvious," not because of an excluded instruction, but because the trial court failed to properly explain the law to the jury.

"The statute under which Bradley was convicted already contains a privilege exception," Justice Brunner said in the opinion. "If the privilege exists, then the exception applies and there is no need for anything to transfer."

Aaron J. Brockler, who represents Bradley, said in a text to Law360 that he is disappointed by the court's decision that could mean his client has to return to prison. Brockler said that the issue at the heart of the case is about the scope of self-defense laws in Ohio.

"Our position has always been that Mr. Bradley lawfully defended himself inside his home against an armed man who entered his home," Brockler said. "We will continue fighting for Tim and for the right of every Ohioan to lawfully defend themselves against an armed person in their home."

A spokesperson for the Belmont County Prosecuting Attorney's Office did not respond to a request for comment.

The state is represented by J. Kevin Flanagan and Jacob A. Manning of the Belmont County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

Bradley is represented by Aaron J. Brockler of Brockler Law.

The case is State v. Bradley, case number 2024-1715, in the Ohio Supreme Court.

--Editing by Vaqas Asghar.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.