Pinkston v. White
2019 Ohio 5165
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Pinkston and White had a sexual relationship; their child A.W. was born July 2018. After an August 5–6, 2018 altercation at White's home, Pinkston obtained an ex parte DVCPO and later sought a final DVCPO.
- At a two-day magistrate hearing, witnesses included Pinkston, White, White's girlfriend (Komotios), White's mother, a neighbor (Lindsay Holliday) who called 9‑1‑1, and a responding officer.
- Pinkston testified White choked and repeatedly slammed her into the side of a trailer, produced photos of bruising and nail marks, and said she sought medical attention afterward; Holliday reported seeing and hearing the slamming and called 9‑1‑1.
- White and his witnesses denied intentional assault, claimed he restrained an irate Pinkston, and the officer testified Pinkston reported no injury that night and the officer saw no visible injuries.
- The magistrate found Pinkston not credible, discounted Holliday, and denied the DVCPO; the trial court, after Pinkston’s objections, reviewed the record, credited Holliday and Pinkston, and granted the DVCPO.
- White appealed, arguing (1) the trial court applied the wrong rule/standard in reviewing the magistrate (Civ.R.53 v. Civ.R.65.1) and (2) the grant was against the manifest weight of the evidence and improperly substituted the trial court’s credibility determinations for the magistrate’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pinkston) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for reviewing objections to a magistrate's denial of a DVCPO | Civ.R.65.1 permits/anticipates the trial court’s independent review of the transcript; trial court's de novo review was appropriate to determine whether the magistrate's denial was supported by the record | Trial court erred by invoking Civ.R.53/de novo review rather than the limited adoption-review under Civ.R.65.1 | Although the trial court quoted Civ.R.53, its handling complied with Civ.R.65.1; independent review of transcript is consistent with Civ.R.65.1, so no reversible error. |
| Whether trial court’s grant of DVCPO was supported by the evidence / manifest weight & credibility | Pinkston: neighbor Holliday’s unbiased testimony + Pinkston’s testimony and injury photos establish by a preponderance that White recklessly caused bodily injury and placed her in fear | White: magistrate credited officer and defense witnesses; trial court improperly substituted judgment, and record lacks proof of slamming/injury | Court affirmed: trial court reasonably credited Holliday and Pinkston, record contains competent, credible evidence supporting DVCPO; decision not against manifest weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (petitioner must prove domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (definition and standard for reviewing manifest-weight challenges)
- Kubin v. Kubin, 140 Ohio App.3d 367 (2000) (when trial court substitutes its own credibility findings for a magistrate’s, the presumption of correctness is diminished)