In State v. Manbevers (Sept. 28, 1994), Pickaway App. No. 93CA23, 1994 Ohio App, the defendant was tried for murder, and his trial counsel did not request an accident defense jury instruction even though the defense at trial was that, although the defendant shot the victim, he did not intend to do so. The Fourth District Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant's trial counsel did not commit ineffective assistance by failing to request an accident defense jury instruction. The appellate court explained, in part, that: The trial court's instructions correctly placed upon the state the burden of proving that the defendant purposely caused the death of the victim. The effect of an accident instruction would simply have been to remind the jury that the defendant presented evidence to negate the element of "purpose." Id. The appellate court further noted: The defendant's argument regarding accident was, in essence, an attack upon the state's proof that he purposely caused the death of the victim. If the jury had credited the defendant's argument, it would have been required to find the defendant not guilty of murder pursuant to the court's instructions. The jury's verdict represents a rejection of defendant's accident argument. Id.