Bullard v. Alley
2014 Ohio 1016
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Bullard petitioned for a domestic violence civil protection order on behalf of her sixteen-year-old daughter K.A., following an incident on September 1, 2012.
- KA testified that Alley grabbed and squeezed her arm, leaving a bruise, and that she feared him and did not want him at her basketball games.
- KA described past injuries caused by Alley, including head blows after basketball games, and stated she felt scared and uncomfortable visiting him.
- Alley testified that he grabbed KA’s arm while helping with the truck and claimed the injury was accidental, denying past head strikes.
- The trial court found KA credible, concluded Alley had crossed a line in controlling behavior, and issued a CPO on November 8, 2012.
- On appeal, Alley challenges the CPO as against the manifest weight of the evidence, arguing no proof of domestic violence or fear of imminent harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CPO was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Bullard argues the evidence showed domestic violence and fear of imminent harm by Alley. | Alley contends the injury was accidental and there was insufficient proof of domestic violence or fear. | The court affirmed the CPO; some evidence supported domestic violence under RC 3113.31(A)(1)(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (preponderance standard for showing danger in DV context)
- Birkhimer v. Dean, 2004-Ohio-2996 (4th Dist. Pike No. 03CA720) (weight-of-the-evidence review in civil cases)
- Walters v. Walters, 2002-Ohio-6455 (4th Dist.) (manifest-weight review framework)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179 (132 Ohio St.3d 328) (establishes standard for manifest weight and deference to credibility)
- Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight standard; credibility of witnesses within fact-finder’s role)
- Rosine v. Rosine, 2010-Ohio-613 (7th Dist. Mahoning No. 09-MA-18) (domestic-violence finding supported by bruising incident)
- Pettet v. Pettet, 55 Ohio App.3d 128 (1988) (absence of Civ.R. 52 findings requires reviewing court to presume regularity)