2022 Ohio 1951
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- C.W. (petitioner) filed a domestic-violence civil protection order (DVCPO) petition on March 22, 2021 alleging J.S. (respondent) choked her twice, pulled a chair out from under her, took her phone while she recorded, threatened to shoot police and displayed a rifle and ammunition. An ex parte DVCPO issued the same day.
- The full hearing was scheduled within statute but delayed due to difficulties serving J.S.; it was held May 7, 2021. Both parties appeared pro se.
- At the May 7 hearing C.W. testified to the choking, phone seizure, gun display and threats; J.S. testified he did not assault her, kept the gun boxed and had gone to a shooting range, and alleged C.W. had attacked him.
- The trial court credited C.W.’s testimony, found at least two domestic-violence incidents occurred, and issued a five-year DVCPO.
- J.S. appealed solely arguing the trial court denied him due process by failing to afford a “full hearing” (interrupting his testimony, denying cross-examination and witnesses, and ruling before he finished). The Tenth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court denied respondent due process by failing to afford a “full hearing” under R.C. 3113.31 | C.W.: She presented credible evidence of choking, threats and weapon display; the court properly heard testimony and acted within discretion. | J.S.: Court interrupted testimony, refused witnesses/cross‑examination, and issued a decision before he finished — denying opportunity to be heard. | Court: Affirmed — hearing was "full"; J.S. was offered counsel/continuance, testified, was offered chance to cross‑examine but declined, did not seek to call witnesses, and interruptions were proper to keep testimony focused. |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (DVCPO remedies may be issued notwithstanding dissolution decree provisions)
- In re Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 43 (2013) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards as represented parties)
- Cox v. Dayton Pub. Sch. Bd. of Edn., 147 Ohio St.3d 298 (2016) (pro se parties receive no special procedural treatment)
- Grieb v. Department of Liquor Control, 153 Ohio St. 77 (1928) (the right to present witnesses is a fundamental due process right)
- Fessenden v. Fessenden, 32 Ohio App. 16 (1928) (litigants entitled to call witnesses within proper bounds of judicial discretion)