Cee v. Stone
2017 Ohio 8687
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Alexa Cee obtained an ex parte civil protection order (CPO) against Brett Stone; a full hearing occurred and the magistrate issued a CPO containing firearm and alcohol restrictions.
- Stone objected to the magistrate’s decision; the trial court overruled objections to entry of the CPO and the firearm restriction but sustained the objection to the alcohol restriction and removed it.
- Stone appealed, arguing (1) the CPO was improperly granted and (2) the firearm-related conditions unconstitutionally restricted his Second Amendment right and lacked a factual nexus to the conduct.
- Record evidence: Cee, who had cohabited with Stone, testified to multiple instances of physical injury, fear of imminent serious harm, property damage (striking her vehicle), unwanted persistent contact, and fear for her safety and her dog.
- No testimony established that Stone owned, threatened with, or used a firearm; the trial court acknowledged firearm language was included because it appeared on a preprinted form.
- The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion on the CPO and for whether firearm restrictions bore a sufficient nexus to the conduct to be prevented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cee) | Defendant's Argument (Stone) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the CPO | Cee argued her testimony of physical assaults, threats, and fear of harm met the preponderance standard for domestic violence relief | Stone argued the CPO was not supported by competent, credible evidence and was an abuse of discretion | Affirmed — record contained some competent, credible evidence supporting the CPO |
| Whether firearm-related conditions on the CPO were permissible | Cee presumably argued the restrictions were appropriate to protect her safety (implied by seeking relief) | Stone argued the firearm ban lacked a nexus to the alleged conduct and unconstitutionally burdened his right to bear arms; no evidence of firearm ownership or threats involving a gun | Reversed in part — firearm restriction vacated because no nexus to conduct or proof of firearm use/possession was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1997) (petitioner must show domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence to obtain a CPO)
- Newhouse v. Williams, 167 Ohio App.3d 215 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (firearm restrictions unsupported where no evidence respondent threatened to use or owned a deadly weapon)