Bartells v. Bertel
2018 Ohio 21
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Petitioner Anthony Bartells filed for a three-year civil stalking protection order (CSPO) against respondent Craig Bertel after multiple confrontations following Bertel's divorce from Patricia Bertel and ongoing custody disputes.
- Alleged incidents (mostly in 2016) included: threats and a push at a school event; photographing Bartells at a Cub Scouts meeting; being struck by Bertel’s car (March 16, 2016); suspicious parking near Patricia’s home and at a pool house; following Bartells in a vehicle; and an email from Bertel requesting the temporary CSPO be dropped.
- A magistrate issued a temporary ex parte CSPO, held a full evidentiary hearing on July 26, 2016, and then entered a three-year CSPO finding a pattern of conduct that caused fear of physical harm and actual physical harm.
- Respondent objected to evidentiary rulings (exclusion of a Facebook post, admission of email testimony) and to the magistrate’s questioning and sufficiency of evidence; the trial court overruled objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and the issuance of the CSPO for an abuse of discretion (trial court adopted magistrate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bartells) | Defendant's Argument (Bertel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Patricia’s Facebook post / impeachment (Evid.R. 608(B), 616) | Post shows Patricia’s bias and motive to fabricate; impeachment via post and questioning was proper. | Facebook post (and extrinsic evidence) should have been admitted to show bias and untruthfulness; cross-examination on alleged deposition lie was barred. | Trial court did not abuse discretion: testimony about the post was permitted, the post itself stayed out; impeachment sufficiently allowed without a fishing expedition. |
| Proving contents of email without original (Best Evidence Rule, Evid.R. 1002/1004) | Petitioner's testimony about the email suffices; original not required because respondent had/control and notice. | Best evidence rule required the original email be produced. | Held petitioner could prove email contents by testimony under Evid.R.1004(3) because respondent had original/copy, was on notice, and did not produce it. |
| Court’s interrogation of witnesses (Evid.R. 611, 614) | Court’s questions merely clarified testimony and aided truth-finding. | Trial court improperly solicited partisan/supportive testimony for petitioner, violating impartiality. | No plain or reversible error: questioning was impartial, proper to clarify testimony in a bench trial, and not biased. |
| Sufficiency to grant CSPO (menacing by stalking pattern of conduct, R.C. 2903.211/2903.214) | Multiple acts (threats, photographing, hitting Bartells with car, following, parking surveillance, violating temporary order) constitute a pattern causing fear and injury. | Incidents are inconsistent and not sufficiently threatening; petitioner lacks credibility and proof of intent; actions viewed in isolation not enough. | Trial court did not err: preponderance of evidence supported a pattern of conduct and findings (intentional/knowing conduct, fear, and physical harm); credibility and weight were for the trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard for trial-court decisions)
- Jenkins v. Clark, 7 Ohio App.3d 93 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982) (judge’s duty to develop truth through active questioning)
- Henry v. Richardson, 193 Ohio App.3d 375 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (bench-trial questioning and plain-error standard in civil appeals)