State v. McGlothan
138 Ohio St. 3d 146
| Ohio | 2014Background
- In Jan 2011 an incident occurred at Cynthia Robinson’s apartment where Jeffrey McGlothan (her boyfriend) detached her tracheostomy tube during an altercation; medical records and Robinson’s testimony supported the facts.
- A grand jury indicted McGlothan for felonious assault (with a repeat-violent-offender specification) and domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A).
- At bench trial the court convicted McGlothan of attempted felonious assault and domestic violence; he received an aggregate two-year prison term.
- The Eighth District affirmed the attempted felonious-assault conviction but reversed the domestic-violence conviction, reasoning that the state failed to prove shared living expenses (a factor the court treated as necessary to show “cohabitation”).
- The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing Williams did not make shared living expenses an essential element of cohabitation when the parties actually resided together.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the domestic-violence conviction, holding that testimony the parties lived together for about a year was sufficient to establish cohabitation without separate proof of shared expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McGlothan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proof of shared living expenses is required to establish "cohabitation" under R.C. 2919.25(F)(2) | Williams lists factors but shared-expense proof is not required where the parties actually resided together; shared-expense is only one factor | Robinson’s testimony that he slept over and was her boyfriend is insufficient alone to prove cohabitation without evidence of shared familial/financial responsibilities | Reversed appellate court: living together for about a year sufficed to establish cohabitation; proof of shared expenses is not mandatory when residence is shown |
| Proper reading/scope of State v. Williams (79 Ohio St.3d 459) | Williams is distinguishable; it addressed parties who did not share a single residence and thus required the factors there | Williams requires both sharing familial/financial responsibilities and consortium; majority is overruling/undermining Williams | Majority: Williams applies to non-resident relationships; where parties actually share a residence Williams’ additional factorproof is not required; court did not adopt a requirement of separate proof of shared expenses |
| Whether allied-offenses claim (raised on appeal) should be resolved or remanded | (State) not focused in majority opinion | (McGlothan) raised allied-offenses; appellate court deemed it moot | Dissent: majority should remand to address allied-offenses; majority reinstated domestic-violence conviction and did not explicitly resolve allied-offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459 (Ohio 1997) (defines and explains factors relevant to "cohabitation" and domestic-violence statutory scope)
- State v. Carswell, 114 Ohio St.3d 210 (Ohio 2007) (discusses legislative intent to protect household/family members in domestic-violence statutes)