A.M. v. D.L.
2017 Ohio 5621
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- A.M. (petitioner) and D.L. (respondent) were in a relationship (2012–2015) and share a child. A.M. filed for a domestic violence civil protection order in March 2016.
- An ex parte order issued; after a full hearing the magistrate entered a protective order (Apr. 19, 2016) restricting contact and banning possession of deadly weapons and use of alcohol/illegal drugs.
- Magistrate found conduct that caused A.M. to reasonably fear bodily harm; trial court overruled D.L.’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s order (July 5, 2016).
- A.M. testified to an alleged sexual assault in November 2015, a February 2016 alleged trespass into her home, a March 2016 custody confrontation, and prior violent incidents during the relationship. Two friends corroborated her fear.
- D.L. disputed the allegations, argued insufficiency and that some incidents were too remote; he also challenged the nexus for weapon/alcohol restrictions.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the evidence sufficient and not against the manifest weight to support a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm; the challenge to weapon/alcohol restrictions was forfeited for failure to object under Civ.R. 53.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.M.) | Defendant's Argument (D.L.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a domestic violence CPO was supported by sufficient evidence / not against manifest weight | A.M. asserted a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm based on the Nov. 2015 sexual assault, Feb. 2016 trespass, March custody incident, and history of violence | D.L. argued incidents were remote or non-threatening, disputed the sexual-assault claim, and said evidence was insufficient and the judgment against the manifest weight | Held: Affirmed. Viewing evidence in petitioner’s favor, a reasonable trier of fact could find present reasonable fear; not against manifest weight given totality, credibility determinations reserved to trial court |
| Whether prohibiting possession of weapons and use of alcohol was justified (nexus) | Implicit: restrictions necessary to prevent further domestic violence given history and allegations | Argued insufficient nexus between alleged conduct and broad restrictions on weapons/alcohol | Held: Forfeited on appeal. D.L. failed to raise these specific objections under Civ.R. 53, so appellate review precluded (no plain-error argument) |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1997) (trial court must find by preponderance that petitioner/family are in danger of domestic violence to grant a protection order)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (sufficiency review: whether evidence, viewed in light most favorable to the prosecutor/petitioner, permits a reasonable trier of fact to find elements by a preponderance/ beyond reasonable doubt as applicable)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standards for sufficiency review)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are for trier of fact)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)