Griga v. DiBenedetto
2012 Ohio 6097
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Griga moved for a Civil Stalking Protection Order under R.C. 2903.214 in Hamilton County; the trial court granted the CSPO naming Griga’s wife, two sons, daughter, and Griga’s parents as protected persons, but later the parents were excised.
- DiBenedetto appealed, arguing the CSPO was supported by insufficient evidence and against the weight of the evidence.
- The court addressed the mental-distress element under R.C. 2903.211(A)(1) and adopted a majority view that a victim’s belief that the offender would cause mental distress suffices.
- Evidence included threats to financially ruin Griga, a statement to Griga’s father, and visits to Griga’s workplace and calls to his employer, tied to a contentious custody-related dispute.
- The court held the CSPO was not against the weight or sufficiency of the evidence, but sustained DiBenedetto’s challenge to including wife and children as protected persons under the statute.
- The judgment was reversed in part and remanded to remove Griga’s wife and children from the CSPO; otherwise, the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mental-distress element sufficiency | Griga contends belief that distress would occur suffices. | DiBenedetto contends there was no proven mental-distress element. | Belief suffices; CSPO affirmed on this basis. |
| Scope of 'family or household member' under CSPO | Griga argues wife and children qualify as protected persons. | DiBenedetto argues they did not meet the statutory definition; no proof they were household members for CSPO purposes. | Remand to remove wife and children from protected persons; otherwise affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hart, unknown (12th Dist. 2009) (supports belief-based mental distress as sufficient)
- Bloom v. Macbeth, unknown (5th Dist. 2008) (supports belief-based mental distress as sufficient)
- State v. Horsley, unknown (10th Dist. 2006) (supports belief-based mental distress as sufficient)
- Jackson, unknown (1st Dist. 2000) (CSPO context; pre-harm protective rationale)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012-Ohio-2179) (abuse of discretion standards and evidence-based review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for evaluating evidence credibility)
- Meeks v. Papadopulos, 62 Ohio St.2d 187 (1980) (statutory interpretation guidance when plain meaning unclear)
- Guthrie v. Long, 2005-Ohio-1541 (10th Dist. 2005) (family/household member analysis under CSPO context)