Dunn v. Clark
2016 Ohio 641
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Dunn petitioned for a civil stalking protection order against Clark in May 2015; magistrate issued ex parte order and then a full hearing with the order granted; the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision; Clark appeals the order.
- The dispute arises from a love triangle involving Clark, his ex-wife, and Dunn, with Dunn dating Clark's ex-wife since 2014 and Clark threatening Dunn on multiple occasions.
- Clark made two threats: a February 2015 threat to kill Dunn and an April 12, 2015 threat detailing intent to shoot Dunn and then himself.
- The court analyzes whether two threats two months apart can constitute a 'pattern of conduct' under R.C. 2903.211(D)(1) and whether Clark knew his statements would cause Dunn fear of physical harm or mental distress.
- The court held that the February and April threats, together with other hostile statements, establish a pattern of conduct and the mens rea element, and affirmed the civil stalking protection order as not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pattern of conduct element satisfied? | Dunn argues two threats two months apart prove a pattern. | Clark argues only the April threat is present; February threat is not pattern. | Yes; two related threats within a close time frame constitute a pattern. |
| Knowledge that threats would be relayed and cause fear? | Clark knew ex-wife would relay threats to Dunn and cause fear. | Threats need not be made directly to Dunn; no mens rea established. | Knowledge inferred; direct delivery not required. |
| Whether the threats caused Dunn to fear physical harm or mental distress? | Dunn testified fear and observed behavior after the April threat. | Credibility and sufficiency of fear contested. | Evidence supports Dunn's fear; burden met by preponderance. |
| Standard of review for manifest weight; sufficiency of evidence? | Weight of evidence supports protection order. | Record shows credibility disputes bar upholding order. | No manifest weight error; evidence supports order. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997-Ohio-52) (setting standard for weight of the evidence and credibility deference)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012-Ohio-2179) (manifest weight review in civil cases; credibility of witnesses)
- Wulf v. Opp, 2015-Ohio-3285 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-10-074) (preponderance standard for civil stalking protection orders)
- State v. Hart, 2009-Ohio-997 (12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-06-079) (belief that respondent will cause physical harm or mental distress suffices)
- Middletown v. Jones, 167 Ohio App.3d 679 (2006-Ohio-3465) (two incidents closely related in time for pattern of conduct)
- Kruszynski v. Kruszynski, 2013-Ohio-3355 (5th Dist. Fairfield No. 12-CA-133) (two threats about two months apart can constitute pattern)