Preston v. Shutway
986 N.E.2d 584
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Preston sought a civil stalking protection order against Shutway amid a deteriorating divorce, with Shutway often present at marital property and a family birthday party.
- Preston testified that Shutway photographed him from Karen Preston’s van on May 15 and followed Preston to an attorney’s office on May 16, after an ex parte order issued a temporary protection order.
- At the May 30 hearing, Preston testified about alleged May 15–May 19 conduct; Shutway offered competing explanations and photographs; the court reserved decision.
- During the hearing, Shutway attempted to admit Exhibit C (a cell phone) but refused to include the SIM card after the court compelled including the whole device; the court warned of contempt for noncompliance and fined Shutway $250.
- After a June 11–12 judgment, the court found insufficient evidence for a civil stalking protection order, vacated ex parte orders, but noted the $250 contempt fine; Shutway appealed challenging the contempt sanction.
- The appellate court ultimately reversed the $250 contempt fine as a summary punishment, affirming all other aspects of the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contempt fine was properly imposed | Preston | Shutway | Contempt fine reversed; not supported by direct-contempt summary authority |
| Whether the ex parte order and subsequent denial of petition were proper | Preston | Shutway | Ex parte order moot after final denial; no error in final judgment |
| Whether the trial judge should have recused for appearance of bias | Preston | Shutway | No reversible bias; no mandatory sua sponte recusal shown |
| Whether Shutway’s cell phone evidence should have been admitted | Preston | Shutway | Exclusion harmless; no reversal given lack of sufficient evidence |
| Whether the hearings should have been consolidated | Preston | Shutway | Separate hearings not error; no demonstrated consolidation requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. Supreme Court 1948) (summary contempt limits; need for immediate court disruption to justify)
- State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (Ohio 2011) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Haines, 112 Ohio St.3d 393 (Ohio 2006) (evidence admissibility and abuse of discretion standard)
- In re Davis, 77 Ohio App.3d 257 (Ohio 2d Dist. 1991) (direct vs indirect contempt; procedural safeguards)
- Davenport v. Big Brothers & Big Sisters of the Greater Miami Valley, Inc., 2010-Ohio-2503 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23659 (Ohio App. 2010)) (courts may take judicial notice of filings in the case)
- Weiner v. Kwait, 2003-Ohio-3409 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19289 (Ohio App. 2003)) (appearance of bias requires evidence to overcome presumption of integrity)