Summary
The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a two-year civil protection order issued in favor of A.A. against M.G.S. The court held that the trial court applied the correct legal standard and that the manifest weight of the evidence supported finding a pattern of conduct constituting menacing by stalking and domestic violence. A dissent would have found an error of law and remanded the matter.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in granting a domestic violence civil protection order based on menacing by stalking.
- Whether the trial court's finding that M.G.S. engaged in a pattern of conduct knowingly causing A.A. to believe he would cause physical harm was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Holdings
- The trial court used the correct legal standard by determining whether M.G.S. engaged in a pattern of conduct constituting menacing by stalking and domestic violence under R.C. 3113.31 and R.C. 2903.211.
- Whether incidents are closely related in time is determined by the trier of fact in the context of all the circumstances; the incidents need not occur within a specific temporal period, and a pattern may include incidents separated by substantial periods of time.
- The manifest weight of the evidence supported the trial court's finding that M.G.S. engaged in a pattern of conduct causing A.A. to believe he would cause physical harm, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the protection order.
Key quotations
“"pattern of conduct" as "two or more actions or incidents closely related in time, whether or not there has been a prior conviction based on any of those actions or incidents."” (¶ 17)
“Thus, M.G.S. committed menacing by stalking and, therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting A.A.'s request for a civil protection order to bring about the cessation of domestic violence pursuant to R.C. 3113.31(E) and (A)(1)(a)(ii).” (¶ 24)
Factual background
A.A. and M.G.S. were formerly in a relationship and have a child together. A.A. testified that M.G.S. had threatened her with a gun during their relationship and that he later confronted her and her family in a series of incidents, including a 2016 incident in which he allegedly kicked a vehicle and drew a weapon and a May 2019 incident involving threats and firearms. The trial court credited A.A.'s evidence, found a pattern of conduct constituting domestic violence, and issued a two-year civil protection order.
Procedural history
A.A. petitioned for a civil protection order and received an ex parte temporary order. After a full hearing on June 12, 2019, the trial court found that M.G.S. had engaged in a pattern of behavior constituting domestic violence and issued a two-year protection order effective through May 29, 2021. M.G.S. appealed, arguing that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and that the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed.