State v. Carnicom
2021 Ohio 1675
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Appellant Shawn Carnicom was served with a domestic-violence temporary protection order (TPO) while jailed; the TPO named his girlfriend A.L. and her children as protected persons.
- Inmate phone logs and voicemails show calls from the jail to A.L.’s cell phone: a total of 52 calls after service of the TPO (many hang-ups) and roughly a dozen voicemails.
- Voicemails after service contained repeated professed love, pleas, and manipulative language; earlier calls (Nov. 7) before the TPO were more accusatory.
- Carnicom was charged with violating the TPO (R.C. 2919.27(A)(1)); four counts were dismissed pre-trial and one count proceeded to jury trial.
- The jury convicted and the court sentenced Carnicom to 180 days; he appealed arguing (1) insufficient / manifest-weight evidence that he violated the TPO and (2) erroneous admission of pre-TPO jail calls as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Carnicom's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / manifest weight: whether calls violated the TPO (harass under the general prohibition) | Calls and voicemails (52 post-service contacts, content showing persistent disturbance) prove harassment and reckless violation; evidence sufficient for jury. | No proof victim’s phone was at a prohibited location (paragraph 5); victim didn’t listen to messages so no effective contact; evidence insufficient/against manifest weight. | Affirmed. Court upheld conviction under the TPO’s general prohibition on "harass." Location of victim not required; defendant’s conduct (repeated calls/voicemails) was sufficient and jury credibility findings stand. |
| Admissibility of pre-TPO (Nov. 7) jail calls | Pre-TPO calls show tonal shift and intent/recklessness (knowledge of monitoring/serving the TPO); therefore relevant. | Pre-TPO calls were irrelevant to the charged period and, if relevant, unduly prejudicial. | Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion: pre-TPO calls were relevant to intent/recklessness and not unfairly prejudicial; jury was limited to considering only the charged period for guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (sets sufficiency standard for Crim.R. 29 review)
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (describes the applicable sufficiency inquiry)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifests-weight standard and appellate review principles)
- State v. Walker, 55 Ohio St.2d 208 (appellate court will not weigh evidence or assess credibility on sufficiency review)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (defines abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (discusses trial-court discretion under Evid.R. 403)