State v. Lay, 169 N.E.3d 249

In May 2020 B.W. obtained an ex parte domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) prohibiting Michael Lay from contacting her or their minor son; a full hearing was set and later continued.
Law enforcement had no record of formal service when Deputy Ross responded to B.W.’s May 22 report, but Ross telephoned Lay in B.W.’s presence and told him a DVCPO had been issued.
The domestic relations court reissued the DVCPO on May 28 to reflect a new hearing date; its substantive terms remained unchanged.
On June 21 Lay texted B.W. asking if their son could call him; B.W. reported it and Deputy Shouse arrested Lay for violating the protection order under R.C. 2919.27(A)(1).
At bench trial the state introduced the DVCPO, screenshots of the text and Lay’s contact info; Lay moved for acquittal arguing lack of service/notice of the May 28 reissued order.
The court denied the Crim.R. 29 motion, found Lay guilty, and the appellate court affirmed: the reissued order was a continuation of the original and Deputy Ross’s notice satisfied R.C. 2919.27(D).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state proved Lay had notice (or was served) of the DVCPO required to convict under R.C. 2919.27	Ross informed Lay May 22 that a DVCPO had been issued; under R.C. 2919.27(D) officer notice suffices and Lay recklessly violated the order by contacting B.W.	Lay contends the May 28 reissued DVCPO was a distinct order and he was neither served with nor informed of that reissued order, so an essential element (service/notice) was not proven	Appellate court held the May 28 reissuance was a continuation of the original ex parte order; Deputy Ross’s phone notice satisfied R.C. 2919.27(D); evidence was sufficient and conviction affirmed

State v. Richardson, 150 Ohio St.3d 554 (defines sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
State v. Smith, 136 Ohio St.3d 1 (service of a protection order is an element of the offense; statute was later amended to allow officer notice as alternative)