State v. Baughman, 2014 Ohio 1821

Appellant Cole A. Baughman was convicted by a Fairfield County jury of one count of felony domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A), based on a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction in municipal court.
Gavin and Baughman had a multi-year relationship with a shared child; by August 10–11, 2012 they lived together in Lancaster, Ohio.
The couple went to Coach’s Corner bar; Gavin drank heavily and left the bar without a car or phone, with Baughman apparently having already departed.
Gavin walked home, confronted Baughman upon his return, and was assaulted—she was punched in the mouth, a ceramic elk was thrown, and she was pinned and kicked.
Gavin called a coworker for help, and police officer Thompson investigated, observed Gavin’s injuries, and noted the living room condition and Gavin’s account as credible; Baughman’s statements to police were not found credible.
At trial, the state presented expert testimony on the cycle of domestic violence; Baughman testified to self-defense; the court convicted him and sentenced him to 15 months in prison; on appeal, he challenged evidentiary rulings and the weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly admitted expert testimony on the cycle of domestic violence.	Gavin’s credibility was attacked; the expert aided the jury in understanding battered-woman syndrome.	The expert testimony exceeded proper scope and provided improper opinion about the victim in the case.	Admissible; it met the Haines criteria and did not prejudice Baughman.
Whether the trial court erred by excluding extrinsic evidence of Gavin’s character.	Evidence of Gavin’s violent/assaultive character was relevant to self-defense.	Barnes prohibits such evidence to establish initial aggressor; but reputation testimony was already admitted.	Not error; exclusion within trial court’s discretion.
Whether the conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence in light of self-defense claims.	Prosecution failed to negate self-defense by preponderance; Gavin provoked the incident.	Self-defense was improperly rejected; appellant acted to defend himself from lethal threat.	Not against weight of the evidence; jury reasonably found primary aggressor and rejected self-defense.

State v. Haines, 112 Ohio St.3d 393, 860 N.E.2d 91 (2006-Ohio-6711) (battered-woman syndrome limited admission to explain victim’s conduct with proper foundation)
State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122, 224 N.E.2d 126 (1967) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; relevance matters)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 2002-Ohio-68, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002) (specific acts of victim’s conduct barred to prove initial aggressor; limits on character evidence)
State v. Long, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25249, 2011-Ohio-1050 (2011-Ohio-1050) (admission of expert domestic-violence testimony under Haines framework; generalized testimony allowed)
State v. Drew, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-467, 2008-Ohio-2797 (2008-Ohio-2797) (courts have allowed expert testimony on cycle of violence in appropriate contexts)
State v. Caudill, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-07-009, 2007-Ohio-1557 (2007-Ohio-1557) (recognizes limits on expert testimony in domestic-violence prosecutions)
State v. White, 4th Dist. Ross No. 97 CA 2282 (1998) (self-defense burden and proof standards; credibility questions for jury)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (“thirteenth juror” standard for manifest-weight review)