2018 Ohio 2647
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- N.P. and T.N./M.N. are next-door neighbors in Warrensville Heights with a long history of mutual harassment dating to 2011.
- In September 2015 the Respondents obtained a civil stalking protection order against N.P. that imposed additional conditions (no publishing media of protected persons, no photographing/videotaping them, no trespass, etc.).
- In June 2016 the Respondents moved to show cause alleging N.P. violated that order; the next day N.P. filed civil stalking petitions against the Respondents (and another neighbor D.H.), and the matters were consolidated.
- At an August 29, 2017 hearing evidence showed the Respondents had mounted continuous security cameras directed at N.P.’s property, repeatedly reported alleged conduct by N.P. to authorities, and in some instances crossed property lines; N.P. testified this caused emotional/mental distress.
- The trial court found N.P. in contempt for violating paragraphs 6 and 7 of the 2015 order (related to publishing media and photographing the Respondents) and fined her $500, denied relief as to D.H., and issued civil stalking protection orders against T.N. and M.N., including an order to re-angle or shield an east-facing camera.
- The Respondents appealed the issuance of the protection orders and related procedures; N.P. cross-appealed the contempt finding. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (N.P.) | Defendant's Argument (T.N./M.N.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court should have allowed N.P. to proceed with amended stalking petitions | Petitions properly alleged menacing-by-stalking under R.C. 2903.211 with recent incidents supporting relief | Petitions were retaliatory, failed to show pattern causing physical harm or mental distress, and did not show immediate/present danger | Court: petitions and amendments were procedurally proper; denial of motion to strike affirmed |
| Whether full civil discovery was improper | Discovery appropriate because R.C. 2903.214 is civil and the Rules of Civil Procedure apply | Discovery unnecessary/overbroad | Court: no abuse of discretion; full discovery permitted |
| Admissibility of testimony about August 2015 property-line crossing | N.P.: testimony relevant to pattern and intrusion | Respondents: evidence should have been excluded | Court: no objection at trial; even if raised, no abuse of discretion in admitting testimony |
| Whether Respondents’ surveillance/reporting constituted a ‘‘pattern of conduct’’ causing mental distress under R.C. 2903.211 | N.P.: continuous camera surveillance, frequent unfounded reports to authorities, and trespasses formed a pattern that caused mental distress | Respondents: surveillance and reporting were lawful and did not meet statutory standard; N.P.’s distress testimony was not credible or sufficient | Court: competent, credible evidence supported finding of pattern causing mental distress; civil stalking protection orders affirmed |
| Whether N.P. violated paragraphs 6 and 7 of the 2015 protection order | N.P.: disputed responsibility for Wi‑Fi name and cameras; argued Wi‑Fi name is not published media and she did not photograph Respondents | Respondents: Wi‑Fi name and video camera use violated the prohibition on publishing media and photographing protected persons/property | Court: N.P.’s own testimony established she used the Wi‑Fi name and had a camera capturing parts of Respondents’ property; contempt finding and $500 fine affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wunsch, 832 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (appellate discussion supporting reliance on a trier of fact’s assessment when determining whether mental distress was caused)