By David Gambino
cleveland.com
CLEVELAND, Ohio - The Ohio Supreme Court will decide the fate of a man involved in the hit-and-run death of a Cleveland firefighter after an appellate court changed his conviction from murder to involuntary manslaughter.
Leander Bissell , 43, sped through an accident scene on Interstate 90 and struck and killed Johnny Tetrick on Nov. 19, 2022.
He was convicted of murder in July 2023 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 16 years. Last November, the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals found there was insufficient evidence to support a murder conviction.
| READ MORE: ‘They’re coming, aren’t they?’ Failures at fatal Fla. fire
It ordered the case back to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court for Bissell to be sentenced on first-degree felony involuntary manslaughter.
County prosecutors asked the state’s high court to intervene. After initially declining to hear the case, the high court on Tuesday announced it accepted prosecutors’ request to reconsider.
“We are pleased for the family of firefighter Tetrick and all first responders that this matter is being reviewed by the Ohio Supreme Court,” County Prosecutor Michael O’Malley said in a statement. “His tragic death should never have happened.”
Tetrick was a 27-year department veteran when his Engine 22 company was called to a nighttime crash the day he was killed. A car had flipped over in the left lane of I-90 east.
Several police cars pulled into the left two lanes to funnel traffic to the right two lanes in the minutes after the crash.
Tetrick, who had walked to the right shoulder, jogged back over into the second lane from the left, which he believed was closed to traffic. Tetrick bent over to pick up a piece of debris from the flipped car with his back to traffic. Bissell slammed his Malibu into Tetrick and launched the firefighter’s body more than 100 feet across the highway.
During trial, Bissell chose to have Common Pleas Judge Timothy McCormick render his verdict, rather than a jury.
At the time, McCormick said he initially thought it was “a stretch” for prosecutors to charge Bissell with murder but later agreed with the charge after hearing the evidence.
Prosecutors had argued that Bissell committed murder because he “knowingly” engaged in conduct that would likely cause serious harm.
Bissell was also found guilty of felonious assault, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated vehicular homicide, failure to comply with a police order and leaving the scene of an accident.
Through his attorney, Timothy Sweeney, he appealed his conviction to the 8th District. Sweeney conceded Bissell acted recklessly but argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted knowingly.
The 8th District agreed with Sweeney last November in a 2-1 vote. “There is no evidence Bissell knowingly used his car as a weapon to cause serious physical harm,” wrote Judge Emanuella Groves in the court’s decision.
Judge Frank Celebrezze, in his dissent, argued Bissell acted knowingly “in the sense that knew that it was probable that his behavior and manner of driving would cause a collision.”
After the court reversed the conviction, the matter was put on hold as prosecutors appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, saying the case is of great importance to every driver in the state.
“If the 8th District’s decision stands, the state’s ability to prosecute in Cuyahoga County crimes that require ‘knowing’ intent will hinge on whether it can show purposeful intent,” wrote Michael Wajda on behalf of Prosecutor Michael O’Malley’s office.
Prosecutors argued that the 8th District “systematically” applies a heightened standard of evidence to overturn “disfavored” convictions. Wajda said the decision on Bissell has raised the burden of proof for prosecutors in several other driving fatality cases.
The state’s Prosecuting Attorney’s Association, Fraternal Order of Police and Association of Professional Fire Fighters filed briefs in support of the appeal.
In response, Sweeney argued the 8th District’s decision was correct and that Bissell didn’t see Tetrick before he struck him. He said the scene of the preceding accident was chaotic and unsafe, with no one directing traffic.
“The state’s argument is mostly hyperbole, devoid of reason, and reflecting little or no respect for the constitutional rights of the accused,” he wrote.
Sweeney questioned why prosecutors are “utterly befuddled” by the legal difference between “knowingly” and “recklessly”: “They either don’t want to understand them or are seeking to obscure them, to benefit a popular victim with loud supporters.”
The high court initially declined to take up the case on April 14, and prosecutors promptly asked them to reconsider.
In a new round of filings, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s office joined in the request for reconsideration. He said the 8th District’s decision misinterpreted the standard for “knowing” conduct under the felonious assault statute.
“The person does not need to intend to hit someone — whether it is with a car or a bullet — for the person to act knowingly. Instead, it must be probable that someone will be hit,” his office argued.
The high court granted the reconsideration in a Tuesday announcement. Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, Justice Patrick Fischer and Justice Pat DeWine disagreed with the move.
Sweeney declined to comment on the decision or otherwise speak about the case.
©2025 Advance Local Media LLC.
Visit cleveland.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.