2020 Ohio 3777
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On Nov. 13, 2019, Michael Lehr called 911 alleging his former girlfriend, Debra Casto, stabbed him with a needle and tried to stab him with a butcher’s knife; he was found outside the house and taken to the hospital.
- Police located a large butcher’s knife plunged into Lehr’s mattress; officers did not observe a syringe and found no signs of recent disturbance in the bedroom; Casto denied harming Lehr.
- Casto filed an ex parte domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) petition on Nov. 14, 2019; an ex parte order issued the same day.
- A full hearing before a magistrate occurred Jan. 14, 2020; both parties and the responding officers testified.
- The magistrate granted a three-year DVCPO on Jan. 17, 2020, and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s order. Lehr did not file objections to the trial court’s adoption under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d).
- Lehr timely appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal for failure to file timely objections under Civ.R. 65.1(G) and declined to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal was properly before the appellate court (Civ.R. 65.1(G) objection requirement) | Casto relied on the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s DVCPO and enforcement of Civ.R. 65.1 procedures. | Lehr did not file objections to the court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision before appealing. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Civ.R. 65.1(G) because Lehr failed to file timely objections; appellate court did not reach the merits. |
| Whether the petition and evidence established domestic violence (Assignment I) | Casto alleged prior abuse, threats regarding insulin, and post-incident fear; magistrate found grounds for DVCPO. | Lehr argued the petition/evidence did not allege or prove domestic violence. | Not reached on the merits — appellate review barred by failure to file timely objections. |
| Whether the DVCPO was against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence (Assignment II) | Casto argued the hearing testimony and police investigation supported the order. | Lehr argued the evidence was insufficient and contrary to the weight of the evidence. | Not reached — appellate court declined to consider due to Civ.R. 65.1(G) default. |
| Whether the court erred by admitting hearsay and opinion evidence (Assignment III) | Casto relied on hearing record and officer testimony as properly admitted. | Lehr claimed improper hearsay and opinion testimony contaminated the record. | Not reached — appellate court dismissed appeal for procedural default under Civ.R. 65.1(G). |
Key Cases Cited
- None — the opinion principally relied on Ohio appellate decisions that were unpublished/slip opinions and on Civ.R. 65.1; no officially reported cases were cited in the opinion.