2018 Ohio 2893
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Susan Lloyd (appellant, pro se) filed for a civil stalking protection order under R.C. 2903.214 against neighbor Joshua Thornsbery, alleging a year-long pattern of stalking, watching from his yard, sexual comments, Facebook posts, and other harassment.
- Lloyd sought an ex parte order (denied) and then a full hearing held May 11 and 16, 2017 in Portage County Common Pleas; both parties testified and Lloyd presented experts, friends, videos, a diary, Facebook printouts, police reports, and other exhibits.
- The trial court found Thornsbery’s conduct "obnoxious" but concluded Lloyd failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a civil protection order was warranted, finding much of Lloyd’s evidence not credible.
- Judgment denying the protection order was entered May 26, 2017; Lloyd appealed pro se asserting 27 assignments of error, largely challenging credibility findings, evidentiary rulings, and trial fairness.
- The Eleventh District affirmed, reasoning the trial court has discretion to issue protection orders, must make credibility determinations, and the appellate court must give substantial deference to those credibility findings; many of Lloyd’s appellate arguments were undeveloped or lacked legal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lloyd proved menacing by stalking under R.C. 2903.211 to obtain a civil protection order | Lloyd asserted she presented sufficient evidence (diary, videos, expert testimony, Facebook posts, police reports) showing a pattern causing mental distress or fear | Thornsbery disputed the allegations; trial court found Lloyd’s evidence not credible | Court held Lloyd failed to prove violation by a preponderance; affirmed denial (trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference) |
| Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard (civil preponderance v. criminal standard) | Lloyd alleged the court used a criminal standard and required recent threats beyond statutory scope | Trial court and appellee maintained the correct civil preponderance standard was applied | Court found no reversible error in legal standard application; issues inadequately argued on appeal |
| Admissibility and consideration of specific evidence (Facebook posts, videos, medical testimony) | Lloyd argued the court ignored or improperly excluded relevant evidence and precedent where similar evidence supported protection orders | Thornsbery and trial court treated evidence per evidentiary rules and found much of it not credible or insufficient | Court declined to address many evidentiary complaints because appellant failed to develop legal arguments; no reversible error shown |
| Whether trial judge exhibited bias or committed procedural impropriety (transcript alteration, forcing testimony, denying continuance) | Lloyd claimed bias, altered transcript, coercion of witnesses, and unfair scheduling decisions | Trial court record did not support claims; appellee denied misconduct | Court found no evidence of judicial bias or impropriety; assignments insufficiently developed and thus overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007) (distinguishes sufficiency and weight-of-the-evidence review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (explains standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (defines "weight of the evidence" and appellate deference to credibility findings)
- State v. Long, 127 Ohio App.3d 328 (1998) (noting appellate courts cannot assess witness demeanor and must defer to trial court credibility determinations)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (establishes deference to trial court credibility findings)