Lyndhurst v. Smith, 2015 Ohio 303

A civil stalking protection order (CSPO) issued Aug. 9, 2011, named Gregory M. Smith as respondent and protected Latoyia and Terence Delaine and their two children; it barred Smith from contacting or being within 500 feet of protected persons or entering their residence/school/grounds.
Smith was charged in five municipal cases for one disorderly-conduct count (Sept. 2012 driveway incident) and four alleged CSPO violations (Apr. 16, 17, 18, 2013 school incidents; Aug. 15, 2013 park incident); the cases were tried together to a jury.
Key evidence: audio recording of Smith insulting Terence in the driveway, school surveillance videos for Apr. 16–18 showing Smith at the school, and Terence’s testimony that Smith entered the park and made eye contact on Aug. 15.
Jury verdicts: acquitted of CSPO violation for Apr. 16; convicted of disorderly conduct (Sept. incident); convicted of CSPO violations for Apr. 17, Apr. 18, and Aug. 15 incidents.
Court imposed fines, suspended jail terms, and two years active probation on the convictions; Smith appealed claiming inconsistent verdicts, insufficient evidence, and that convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inconsistent verdicts require reversal	Inconsistent acquittal on Apr.16 does not invalidate convictions on separate-day incidents	Verdicts are irreconcilably inconsistent and should be set aside	No reversal; inconsistent verdict doctrine does not compel reversal and incidents were separate events
Sufficiency of evidence for Apr.17–18 school CSPO violations	Videos and Smith’s admission he saw the protected child on Apr.16 support that he knew child attended that school and nevertheless entered	Smith lacked knowledge that the protected child attended that school on Apr.17–18, so could not act recklessly	Evidence sufficient: Smith admitted seeing child on Apr.16, so entry on Apr.17–18 supported a reckless violation
Sufficiency of evidence for Aug.15 park CSPO violation	Terence’s testimony that Smith made eye contact and remained within ~20 feet for several minutes shows awareness and refusal to leave	Smith was unaware or did not recklessly disregard presence of protected persons	Evidence sufficient: eye contact and failure to depart supported recklessness and CSPO violation
Manifest weight challenge to driveway disorderly-conduct conviction	N/A (City relied on recording and testimony)	Terence not credible; music noise could explain interaction	Not against manifest weight; court defers to jury credibility determinations and declines to reverse

Powell v. United States, 469 U.S. 57 (explain inconsistent jury verdicts may reflect compromise, mistake, or lenity)
Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (inconsistent verdicts do not automatically require reversal)
State v. Gardner, 118 Ohio St.3d 420 (a conviction may stand despite acquittal on a related count when findings are irreconcilable)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishing sufficiency from manifest weight; appellate role as "thirteenth juror")
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard: evidence viewed in prosecution's favor must allow a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (articulating the standard for manifest weight reversal)