Executive Summary
- A Richland County grand jury returned a “no bill,” declining to indict Wesley Patrick for voluntary manslaughter.
- Charges were dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning prosecutors could revisit the case if new evidence arises.
- Patrick claimed self-defense, alleging the deceased cut him off and attempted to breach his vehicle during a road rage incident.
- Police testimony confirmed Patrick called 911 immediately and cooperated with the investigation at the scene.
A Richland County grand jury has declined to indict a 27-year-old Crestline man in connection with the fatal shooting of a Mansfield resident during a December road rage incident. Following the grand jury’s decision to return a “no bill,” voluntary manslaughter charges against Wesley Patrick were dismissed in Richland County Common Pleas Court.
The dismissal was requested by Prosecutor Jodie Schumacher without prejudice, a legal designation that allows the state to refile charges should new evidence emerge in the future. The grand jury concluded there was insufficient probable cause to proceed to trial regarding the death of 42-year-old Andrew Westlund.
The case originated from a confrontation on December 21 on Lexington Springmill Road. During a preliminary hearing, Ontario Police Sgt. Jon Sigler testified that Patrick contacted 911 immediately following the incident, stating he had acted in self-defense. According to police testimony, Patrick told investigators he was being tailgated by a vehicle driving erratically before stopping at a red light near U.S. 30.
Investigators reported that Westlund maneuvered his vehicle perpendicular to Patrick’s car, effectively blocking him, before exiting his vehicle and approaching Patrick. Sgt. Sigler testified that Westlund punched Patrick’s car window multiple times and attempted to open the locked door. Patrick, who remained inside his vehicle, retrieved a 9mm handgun. Police stated that when Westlund returned to the vehicle after initially walking away, Patrick fired a single shot.
According to Sgt. Sigler, Patrick told authorities he aimed for “center mass,” though he explicitly stated his intent was to “maim” rather than kill. Westlund was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. Defense attorney Josh Brown emphasized during court proceedings that his client did not flee the scene, consented to a search of his phone, and provided a urine sample voluntarily.
Legal Procedural Context
The return of a “no bill” by a grand jury indicates that the panel of citizens did not find sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal trial based on the information presented by the prosecutor. In Ohio, these proceedings are conducted in secrecy to protect the reputations of individuals who may not be charged. While the dismissal closes the current legal chapter for Patrick, the “without prejudice” status of the dismissal leaves open the possibility of future litigation if the evidentiary landscape changes. It is important to note that under the U.S. justice system, all individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
