McCloud v. Baker

2022-Ohio-1307 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022) · Ohio Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, Hocking County · April 15, 2022 · No. 21CA3

Summary

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed a Hocking County Court of Common Pleas order granting a civil stalking protection order against Marion Baker. The court held that competent, credible evidence supported findings that Baker engaged in a pattern of conduct constituting menacing by stalking and caused mental distress. The court overruled Baker’s sole assignment of error challenging the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, Hocking County
Writing for the Court
Jason P. Smith, Presiding Judge; Abele, Judge; Hess, Judge
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
April 15, 2022
Docket number
21CA3
Procedural posture
Marion Baker appealed a Hocking County Court of Common Pleas judgment granting Tyler McCloud's petition for a civil stalking protection order and naming Kayla Painter as an additional protected party.
Standard of review
A decision whether to grant a civil protection order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The appellate court must generally defer to the trial court's factual findings, credibility determinations, and weight-of-the-evidence assessments when supported by competent, credible evidence.
Precedential value
published opinion
Parties
Marion Baker v. Tyler McCloud, Kayla Painter
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurestandard of reviewcivil procedureinjunctionsequitable relief

Practice areas

civil protection ordersappellate reviewstalking and menacing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether competent, credible evidence supported the trial court's finding that Baker engaged in a pattern of conduct constituting menacing by stalking under R.C. 2903.211.
  2. Whether competent, credible evidence supported the trial court's finding that Baker knowingly caused Tyler and Kayla mental distress.
  3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting the civil stalking protection order.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Baker engaged in a pattern of conduct. The evidence of multiple menacing incidents occurring over time, including the shotgun, golf-cart, backhoe, threat, and post-order approach incidents, supported the finding.
  2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Baker's conduct caused Tyler and Kayla mental distress.
  3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the civil stalking protection order, and the judgment was affirmed.

Key quotations

A reviewing court should not reverse a decision simply because it holds a different opinion concerning the credibility of the witnesses and evidence submitted before the trial court. (¶ 8)
No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person. (¶ 9)

Factual background

The parties owned adjoining properties sharing an easement and common driveway, and they disputed responsibility for driveway gravel and maintenance costs. After the relationship deteriorated, Baker allegedly engaged in conduct including riding near the driveway with a shotgun, staring at the McClouds' home from a golf cart, placing equipment near the right-of-way, threatening that someone would "take care of" Tyler, and approaching the home after an ex parte order. Tyler and Kayla testified that Baker's conduct caused concern for their safety and led them to install security cameras.

Procedural history

McCloud filed a petition for a civil stalking protection order, which the trial court granted ex parte. After full hearings on October 30 and December 28, 2020, the trial court entered a protection order on February 5, 2021, effective through October 20, 2022. Baker appealed, arguing that the finding of menacing by stalking was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court overruled the sole assignment of error and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…