State v. Dull, 2013 Ohio 1395

Dull was convicted of domestic violence in Seneca County after a June 28, 2012 jury trial.
Prosecution alleged a violation of R.C. 2919.25(A),(D)(4), with prior DV convictions alleged in the specification.
The incident occurred November 26, 2011, involving Dull and live-in girlfriend Heather Shobe, with a scuffle witnessed by neighbors.
Dull testified that Shobe initiated the confrontation and that he used a marine-learned hip toss to escape; he claimed self-defense and denied kicking or stepping on Shobe's throat.
The jury heard testimony from Shobe and two neighbors about Dull's alleged excessive force after the initial confrontation.
The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense and later imposed a 24-month prison term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the self-defense verdict is warranted by the weight of the evidence.	Dull argues the weight of evidence does not support self-defense.	Dull contends he acted in self-defense and the jury could credit that defense.	No weight-of-evidence reversal; verdict not against the manifest weight.
Whether restitution to third parties rather than the victim is lawful.	The court may order restitution to the victim only, not third parties.	Restitution may be directed to third parties under the statute as previously interpreted.	Restitution to third parties is unconstitutional; only to victims is authorized.
Whether a no-contact order can coexist with a prison term for the same count.	No-contact can be imposed alongside a prison sentence.	If prison is imposed, no-contact (a community-control sanction) cannot also be imposed.	Prison term and no-contact order cannot be imposed together; remand for proper sentencing.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997) (defining weight of the evidence standard)
State v. Thompson, 127 Ohio App.3d 511 (Ohio App.3d, 1998) (credibility and fact-finder deference in weight review)
State v. Didion, 173 Ohio App.3d 130 (3d Dist. 2007) (restitution to third parties under prior statute)
State v. Kreischer, 109 Ohio St.3d 391 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006) (restitution provisions and third-party payments interpretation)
Erb v. Erb, 91 Ohio St.3d 503 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001) (statutory interpretation to effect legislative purpose)
Columbus–Suburban Coach Lines v. Pub. Util. Comm., 20 Ohio St.2d 125 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1969) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent guidance)
State v. Vlad, 153 Ohio App.3d 74 (Ohio App.3d, 2003) (mutual exclusivity of prison and community-control sanctions)
State v. Hartman, 2012-Ohio-874 (3d Dist., 2012) (mutual exclusivity of prison term and sanctions on same count)