Skip to main content

Hillsboro woman found guilty of felonious assault following jury trial in Highland County

By
Caitlin Forsha, The Highland County Press

Following a trial in Highland County Common Pleas Court Thursday, April 27, a jury convicted a Hillsboro woman of a second-degree felony charge of felonious assault.

As previously reported, Jennifer M. Baker, 60, was indicted in February and charged with a second-degree felony count of felonious assault, a fourth-degree felony count of aggravated assault and a forfeiture specification. According to court records, the state later moved to dismiss the aggravated assault charge, which was granted by Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss.

The jury found Baker guilty of felonious assault and not guilty of a lesser finding of aggravated assault stemming from a “sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage.”

The state alleged that on or about Oct. 28, 2022, Baker called the Highland County Sheriff’s Office reporting that she had fired a shotgun at a truck driving by her home, which she believed to be driven by an ex-boyfriend of her daughter. She reported that the driver later came back and fired shots out of the truck.

The victim — who was not in fact the daughter’s ex-boyfriend — was later arrested for firing shots at Baker’s property. According to court records, he pleaded guilty in January to a bill of information charging him with felonious assault and failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer. The victim was sentenced to 59 months, or nearly five years, in prison, according to court records.

The trial began with Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins telling the jury that there is “no law” permitting Baker to “shoot at a passing motorist.” The truck was “riddled with bullet holes,” Collins said, and the victim had not committed a crime against Baker until after she had fired at him first.

Defense attorney Jim Boulger argued that Baker — who previously served as the longtime finance director of Highland County Community Action Organization — is a 60-year-old widow who operated under the “honest belief that the driver of the vehicle” was someone other than the victim.

The state called multiple witnesses from the Highland County Sheriff’s Office, beginning with the dispatcher who took Baker’s call advising she had shot at the truck. The audio recording was played in court. Two other deputies and a road patrol supervisor also testified about responding to the scene during the night of the incident.

Also testifying was the victim whose truck had been shot. He said he had driven past Baker’s home several times that night. The victim said his truck was moving past Baker’s home — not stopped, not revving his engine — when she fired shots and he had glass shattering around him. He said he was “furious” and retaliated by driving to his house to retrieve his gun.

The state rested at 11:35 a.m., and after an hourlong lunch break, Baker took the stand in her own defense Thursday afternoon.

Baker said that her daughter’s ex-boyfriend is “not welcome on my property.” She testified that she had been asleep with a screen door open when she heard a truck outside revving its engine. Baker said she fired her shotgun at the vehicle because she thought it was her daughter’s ex-boyfriend. She said she did not intend to cause physical harm to the victim, just “wanted him to go away.”

Under cross examination, Collins asked Baker, “Do you think it’s responsible gun ownership to shoot in the dark at a passing vehicle?” Baker said no.

Baker stepped down just after 1 p.m., after which the jury received instructions and heard closing arguments.

Coss asked the jury that if they find Baker guilty of felonious assault to consider an “additional finding, if that is your finding,” regarding “sudden passion or a sudden fit of rage” Baker that was incited by the victim.

“If, and only if, you determine that the state has proven all of the essential elements of felonious assault, you will determine whether the defendant committed the offense while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force, which would constitute the offense of aggravated assault, rather than felonious assault,” Coss said.

In her first closing argument, Collins told the jury the state had proved “beyond a reasonable doubt that on October 28, 2022 at about 2 in the morning,” Baker used her 12-gauge shotgun to “open fire” on a truck sitting “on a township road.”

The ammunition “made contact with that truck clear from the front headlight, clear down the passenger side, clear around the tailgate, almost to the driver’s side,” Collins said. As a result, the passenger window was “shattered.”

“It is no excuse and no defense that she didn’t know it was [the victim] driving that truck,” Collins said. “This defendant, and this defendant alone, is responsible for her actions, no matter how stupid, no matter how irresponsible and no matter how dangerous those actions are.”

Boulger argued that  “the reason that Jennifer Baker is sitting in this courtroom today is because after she shot at that truck, she called the sheriff's department and she told him what she'd done.”

“It is important for you to concentrate on what you know about her and her situation,” Boulger said.

He described Baker as a “widow who lives on an isolated township road” who had a negative history with her daughter’s ex-boyfriend, whom he said it is “an absolute monster.” Baker “was honest in her belief” that the ex-boyfriend had come to her property, Boulger said.

“She lives in a hellish situation,” Boulger said. “She is operating in that hellish situation when she steps out on that front porch, and what is she wanting to do? She’s going to let loose with a round or two from her shotgun at that truck. What’s her intention? It’s not to harm, necessarily, but it’s to frighten, it’s to scare, get him away, put him away, get him out of there. What will he understand except that type of violence?”

In her final argument, Collins reminded the jury that the daughter’s ex-boyfriend was not on Baker’s road the night of the shooting, so we’re “done with him.”

She also said that the criminal actions of the victim after Baker “shot at him” do not “excuse what [Baker] did, period.”

“He wants you to give her character consideration,” Collins said. “The character that I see is a woman that goes out her front door with a loaded shotgun, not knowing who is out there, and opens fire, and thinks that revving your engine puts you in the position to be shot at if you’re in front of her house.”
 
The prosecutor added that if was “a warning shot,” then Baker should fired “into the ground or in the air,” not at the vehicle.

“That’s not trying to scare, that’s trying to kill,” Collins said.

Collins also argued that the lesser charge of aggravated assault does not apply.

“She wants you to believe that she was in this sudden rage and suffering from a fit of passion, but what she testified to was that she was asleep,” Collins said. “The question is would a reasonable person have acted this way? The answer is no, because this is felonious assault, not [aggravated] assault.”

Collins then reviewed every element of the case with the jury before asserting that the state has “proven each element beyond a reasonable doubt.” She added that “mistaken identity is not a defense” and that it’s “not the law.”

“The physical evidence is overwhelming,” Collins said. “The witness testimony is overwhelming, and above that, you have the defendant’s own statements admitting that she did this.”

After approximately an hour a half of deliberations, the jury returned their verdict — which was read by Highland County Clerk of Courts Ike Hodson — finding Baker guilty of felonious assault and not guilty of the lesser finding of aggravated assault, determining Baker had committed the offense “without acting under the influence of sudden passion or a sudden fit of rage brought on by the victim.”

The 12-gauge shotgun used in the commission of the offense was also found subject to forfeiture.

Coss ordered a presentence investigation. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for June 7 at 10 a.m.

 

Add new comment

This is not for publication.
This is not for publication.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
Article comments are not posted immediately to the Web site. Each submission must be approved by the Web site editor, who may edit content for appropriateness. There may be a delay of 24-48 hours for any submission while the web site editor reviews and approves it. Note: All information on this form is required. Your telephone number and email address is for our use only, and will not be attached to your comment.