State v. Brautigam
2012 Ohio 2599
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Brautigam restrained his wife, seized keys and cell phone, and pushed her into a bedroom after a confrontation over custody of their child.
- Police charged two counts of domestic violence; one under R.C. 2919.25(A) and one under R.C. 2919.25(C).
- Municipal court convicted on both counts and sentenced Brautigam to 180 days in jail.
- Appellant argues the DV counts are allied offenses of similar import and require merger, that other acts evidence was improperly admitted, and that testimony about a civil protection order (CPO) was improperly allowed.
- The appellate court affirms in part, vacates Brautigam’s sentence, and remands for resentence after applying Johnson to determine allied-offense status; issues with allied offenses, other acts evidence, and the CPO testimony are addressed; the court concludes invited error and evidentiary rulings were properly handled or waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the two DV counts allied offenses of similar import? | Brautigam argues merger under 2941.25(A). | State contends separate offenses or separate animus. | Remand to apply Johnson; not resolved on record. |
| Was other acts evidence properly admitted? | Evidence of prior abuse is probative of motive/intent under 404(B) and 2945.59. | The state overstepped limits and testimony was prejudicial. | Question proper; evidence admissible; error not preserved due to invited questions. |
| Did cross-examination about the CPO improperly influence the jury? | Cross-exam sought to introduce CPO details. | Court did not compel a full definition; testimony was invited by Brautigam’s questions. | Invited error; testimony not reversible error; claim overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (guides allied-offense analysis under R.C. 2941.25)
- State v. Underwood, ? (Ohio 2010) (addressing preservation of allied-offense arguments)
- State v. Ziemba, 9th Dist. No. 25886, 2012-Ohio-1717 (Ninth Dist. 2012) (first-instance Johnson issue may be raised on appeal)
- State v. Bronner, 69 Ohio St.3d 527, 1994 (Ohio 1994) (strict construction of 2945.59/404(B))
- State v. Lollis, 2010-Ohio-4457 (Ohio) (redirect-examination relevance; invited-error concept)
- State v. Kelley, 2011-Ohio-4999 (Ninth Dist. 2011) (line of questioning on redirect)
- State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277, 1988 (Ohio 1988) (evidence-rule standard for 404(B))