2019 Ohio 3573
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioner M.J.W. (pro se) sought a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) under R.C. 2903.214 against neighbor T.S., asserting multiple incidents of harassment and intimidation between spring 2017 and spring 2018.
- Alleged incidents included T.S. charging at the family angrily, shouting profanity at M.J.W., threatening to slit her son’s throat, blowing roof debris onto M.J.W. with a leaf blower (causing eye irritation), throwing objects over the fence, and intentionally running noisy equipment to disrupt use of their patio.
- An ex parte CSPO was issued; a full hearing followed where M.J.W., her husband W.W., and T.S. testified (A.W., the son, did not testify).
- The trial court found a pattern of conduct and granted a one-year CSPO prohibiting T.S. from assaulting, threatening, harassing, following, interfering with, or stalking M.J.W., W.W., and A.W., and ordering 500-foot distancing except when on his own property.
- T.S. appealed, arguing the evidence did not meet the preponderance standard for menacing by stalking and that the court improperly relied on the petition as evidence.
- The appellate court affirmed as to M.J.W., but reversed as to W.W. and A.W., and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether menacing-by-stalking proven as to M.J.W. | M.J.W.: multiple incidents (verbal abuse, debris blown into her eyes, interference with patio use) show a pattern causing mental distress | T.S.: incidents didn't occur / petition not evidence; insufficient proof | Affirmed for M.J.W.: competent, credible testimony established a pattern and mental distress |
| Whether CSPO may cover W.W. and A.W. | M.J.W.: sought relief for family members living with her | T.S.: insufficient evidence that A.W. resided with M.J.W.; only one incident involving W.W. so no pattern | Reversed as to W.W. and A.W.: A.W. not shown to be a resident household member; W.W. lacked two incidents directed at him |
| Whether incidents constituted a "pattern of conduct" (temporal closeness) | M.J.W.: multiple incidents across 2017–2018 suffice as closely related in time for a pattern | T.S.: incidents were spread over 18 months and not closely related | Court: no strict temporal requirement; trier of fact may find pattern — pattern existed for M.J.W. |
| Whether trial court improperly used the petition as evidence | M.J.W.: court used the petition only to frame live testimony and then elicited sworn testimony | T.S.: court effectively incorporated the petition into the record at the full hearing | Held: no error — court used the petition to guide questioning but relied on live testimony, not the pleading itself |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34, 679 N.E.2d 672 (Ohio 1997) (pleadings are not evidence at a full hearing on a protective order)
- State v. Spaulding, 151 Ohio St.3d 378, 89 N.E.3d 554 (Ohio 2016) (menacing-by-stalking requires causing another to believe the offender will cause physical harm or mental distress)