State v. Kitzilkaya, 2023 Ohio 3989

Defendant Ismet Kizilkaya and complaining witness Fidan Ozlem Pulten (both Turkish) disputed the nature of their relationship; they lived together but disagreed about financial and romantic arrangements.
July 13, 2022 incident: Pulten testified that during an argument she covered Kizilkaya’s mouth and he struck her multiple times; Officer Bronner observed red marks on Pulten and Kizilkaya left for New Jersey before police spoke with him. Kizilkaya denied any physical contact.
After the July incident Kizilkaya signed a temporary protection order to stay away from Pulten and was later charged with domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)).
October 7, 2022 incident: Pulten testified Kizilkaya pulled alongside her car in a restaurant parking lot and threatened her, which she viewed as a violation of the protection order. Kizilkaya acknowledged being in the area and later called police to ask whether a report existed, but denied confronting her.
A jury convicted Kizilkaya of one count of domestic violence and one count of violating a protection order (both first-degree misdemeanors); he received concurrent 180-day sentences (with credit) and fines. He appealed, arguing the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The First District Court of Appeals reviewed the record, credited the jury’s credibility determinations, and affirmed both convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the domestic-violence conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence	Pulten’s testimony corroborated by Officer Bronner’s observation of red marks; jury entitled to credit victim	Kizilkaya denied hitting Pulten and offered an alternative account of being forced out and leaving	Affirmed—appellate court declined to overturn credibility findings; no manifest miscarriage of justice
Whether the protection-order-violation conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence	Pulten saw Kizilkaya clearly in the parking lot and perceived a threat; Kizilkaya placed himself in the area and called police afterward	Kizilkaya said he was working (DoorDash), did not approach or speak to Pulten, and only checked with police later	Affirmed—jury’s finding reasonable given the record; no basis to reverse on manifest-weight grounds

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (establishes manifest-weight review standard and the court’s role as "thirteenth juror")
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (reversal for manifest weight warranted only in exceptional cases where evidence heavily favors acquittal)