Jones v. Jones
2011 Ohio 4393
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- On May 25, 2010, Husband filed a petition for a domestic violence civil protection order against Wife, seeking relief for himself and the five children; an ex parte order was issued the same day and a full hearing was scheduled.
- Husband requested an in camera interview of the parties’ then eleven-year-old daughter; there is no further record showing an intention to present her as a witness.
- During the hearing, Husband sought to proffer testimony of his nine-year-old and seven-year-old sons based on off‑record discussions; the trial court refused to allow the children to testify on the record.
- At the conclusion of the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement and, on June 18, 2010, dismissed Husband’s petition and vacated the ex parte order.
- Husband appeals, challenging the trial court’s purported failure to conduct an in camera examination/voir dire of the children under ten for competency under Evid.R. 601.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not conducting an in camera voir dire of the children under ten. | Jones argues the court should have conducted an in camera competency examination. | Jones contends the court need not voir dire due to the testimony's lack of relevance. | No error; court properly declined to admit the proffered child testimony and did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (Ohio 1991) (requires a voir dire for child witnesses under ten to assess competency)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (evidence rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definitional standard for abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (abuse-of-discretion standard; substantial rights affected by evidentiary decisions)