State v. Hunt
2014 Ohio 3839
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Hunt was charged July 11, 2013 with violating a civil protection order under R.C. 2919.27(A)(1) after allegedly driving by his ex-girlfriend Sweet's residence within 500 feet.
- Sweet obtained a civil stalking protection order on June 3, 2013 prohibiting Hunt from being within 500 feet of her.
- Sweet informed two neighbors, Anderson and Patrick, about the order and provided a vehicle list to help watch for Hunt.
- On July 11, 2013, Patrick testified he saw Hunt drive by Sweet's house twice in a silver vehicle; Sweet then saw Hunt drive by once after Patrick's call; the distance between the house and the street was about 48 feet.
- Hunt testified he knew of the order, was present at the protective order hearing, and denied driving by Sweet's residence that evening; the jury convicted Hunt of the protective-order violation and he was sentenced to 180 days in jail with conditions and a $500 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the conviction supported by sufficient evidence? | Hunt contends the State's proof relied on inconsistent neighbor testimony. | Hunt argues the evidence is insufficient and credibility issues preclude a finding of recklessness. | No; substantial evidence supports the conviction. |
| Is the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Sweet and Patrick's testimony allegedly inconsistent undermines credibility. | The jury was entitled to credit the witnesses and the evidence showed Hunt knew of the order and still came within 500 feet. | No; the weight of the evidence does not render the verdict clearly against justice. |
| Did the trial court err by restricting cross-examination on prior allegations? | Evid.R. 608(B) allowed cross-examining Sweet about prior allegations to probe truthfulness. | The court properly limited cross-examination because the proposed line of questioning was not clearly probative of truthfulness. | No; court did not abuse its discretion; prior dismissal details were not clearly probative of veracity. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (cross-exam rules on witness credibility (Evid.R. 608(B)))
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio Supreme Court 1997) (sufficiency of evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio Supreme Court 1967) (credibility determinations reserved to trier of fact)