Elkins v. Reed
2014 Ohio 1217
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Neighbors dispute: Keith and Yvonne Elkins bought ~11 acres (no house) adjacent to George and Donna Reed’s long‑held residence; disputes arose when Elkins began improving the vacant acreage.
- Reeds repeatedly fired shotguns on their property in proximity to Elkins; Donna admitted firing rounds into a tree and both described frequent shotgun practice on their land.
- The parties installed cameras, posted hostile signs visible to the other, and made multiple sheriff calls; Elkins testified they fear visiting the property, abandoned building plans, and are trying to sell.
- Elkins obtained ex parte civil stalking protection orders (CSPOs) against George and Donna; after a full hearing the magistrate issued five‑year CSPOs forbidding the Reeds from possessing firearms and other relief.
- The trial court overruled the Reeds’ objections (including a claim a DVD exhibit was now blank) and affirmed the CSPOs; the Reeds appealed raising three assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Elkins) | Defendant's Argument (Reeds) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported menacing by stalking under R.C. 2903.211 | Elkins: Reeds’ repeated hostile acts (shooting, signs, harassment) caused fear and mental distress, satisfying menacing by stalking | Reeds: Though pattern shown, Elkins did not prove he believed they would cause physical harm or suffer mental distress | Court: Affirmed — sufficient, credible evidence and proper weight; CSPO upheld |
| Whether prohibition on firearm/deadly‑weapon possession for five years is lawful | Elkins: Firearm ban reasonably protects petitioner given Reeds’ admitted shootings and harassment | Reeds: Ban is arbitrary, overbroad, unconstitutional (Second Amendment; no criminal conviction) | Court: Affirmed — restriction permitted as police‑power protection measure and bears nexus to conduct; concurring/dissent urged narrower tailoring |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying new hearing because Exhibit G (DVD) is now blank | Elkins: Record (other evidence and copies) suffices; magistrate relied on more than recordings | Reeds: Blank DVD makes record incomplete; App.R.9/9(C) corrective procedures required and new hearing warranted | Court: Affirmed — Reeds knew of problem pre‑appeal and did not employ App.R.9(C); remaining record supports judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (clarifies civil manifest‑weight standard, applies Thompkins standard to civil cases)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment does not protect keeping and carrying any weapon in any manner)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard for appellate review)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (judgment supported by competent, credible evidence will not be reversed)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 104 Ohio St.3d 664 (appellate court may direct correction of the record when appellant without fault discovers deficiency after decision)