Johnson v. Miller
2018 Ohio 2113
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Johnson (petitioner) and Miller (respondent) were in a 23-year romantic relationship that ended in 2016; they have no children together.
- Johnson filed an ex parte civil stalking protection order (CSPO) on July 5, 2017; a full hearing before a magistrate occurred July 12, 2017; both parties testified without counsel.
- Testimony from Johnson and her daughter alleged Miller repeatedly contacted Johnson after being told to stay away, appeared at her home multiple times (including coming into her backyard and sitting outside), left letters on her door, showed up where she would be, and threatened workplace/online actions.
- Miller admitted continued contact after being told to stay away, denied owning guns but said he would not surrender them if he did, and admitted prior conduct involving pointing a gun at a neighbor’s child.
- The magistrate issued a five-year CSPO requiring Miller to stay 500 feet away from Johnson, surrender deadly weapons, and prohibiting him from visiting homes of Johnson’s relatives.
- On appeal Miller challenged sufficiency (knowledge and mental distress) and scope of the CSPO; the appellate court affirmed all but the absolute ban on visiting relatives’ homes when Johnson was not present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent knowingly engaged in a pattern of conduct constituting menacing by stalking | Miller continued contacting and appearing at Johnson’s residence after being told to stay away, showing awareness that his conduct would cause distress | Miller claimed contacts were non-threatening attempts to reconcile and lacked the requisite knowledge to cause distress | Court: Sufficient evidence Miller acted knowingly; credibility favored Johnson and daughter; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Johnson suffered "mental distress" under R.C. 2903.211 | Johnson and daughter testified she became shaky, cried, afraid to leave home, and carried a firearm for protection | Miller argued behavior did not cause mental distress and pointed to alleged visit as inconsistent | Court: Mental distress established without expert testimony; magistrate could rely on witness credibility and experience |
| Whether the CSPO's weapons-surrender requirement was an abuse of discretion | Petition pointed to Miller’s prior aggressive firearm conduct and testimony | Miller denied owning guns and testified he would not surrender them | Court: Weapons restriction justified by testimony about prior gun conduct; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether banning Miller from visiting homes of Johnson’s relatives (even when Johnson absent) was an abuse of discretion | Restriction argued necessary to protect Johnson and prevent indirect contact | Miller argued it was overbroad when Johnson was not present | Court: Overbroad; reversed as to absolute prohibition and remanded to limit restriction to occasions when Johnson is present |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for reviewing abuse of discretion)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of witness testimony are for the trier of fact)