State v. Meinke
2017 Ohio 7787
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Nolan Meinke and D.G. had a prior romantic relationship and a child; after separation Meinke allegedly harassed and threatened D.G., prompting her to obtain an ex parte civil protection order under R.C. 3113.31.
- The protection order (served April 18, 2014, per prosecution witnesses) prohibited Meinke from initiating contact via phone, text, social media, or other electronic means.
- D.G. produced screen shots of texts she received from Meinke after the order was entered; police filed two criminal cases charging Meinke with violating a protection order (R.C. 2919.27) and one count of domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25).
- At trial the State presented testimony from D.G. and officers that Meinke had been served; no certified return or the actual copy of the signed order was introduced at trial.
- The defense moved for acquittal, requested a jury instruction that service is an element (citing State v. Smith), and challenged the service testimony; the court denied the instruction (for noncompliance with Crim.R. 30(A)) and denied acquittal.
- The jury convicted Meinke on the protection-order violations and domestic violence; the municipal court imposed consecutive sentences. On appeal the Ninth District reversed as to the convictions because the court failed to instruct the jury that service was an element and the omission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Meinke was served with the protection order | State: testimony from victim and officers, including dispatch verification, sufficed to prove service | Meinke: testimony was inadmissible hearsay / State failed to prove service beyond reasonable doubt | Overruled — viewing testimony in State's favor, a rational juror could find service proved (sufficiency satisfied) |
| Jury instruction omitting service as an element of violating a protection order | State: any error harmless because evidence of service was substantial and undisputed | Meinke: omission of element (service) required reversal per Smith and due process; jury never asked to find service | Sustained — omission of service instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction reversed and remanded |
| Whether service must be proven in a particular form (e.g., certified return) | State: Smith requires proof of service but not proof of method; other evidence may suffice | Meinke: State should have produced a certified return as irrefutable evidence of proper service | Not decided as a separate question; court found the evidence presented was sufficient to show service complied with Civ.R. 65.1(C) |
| Allied-offenses / consecutive sentencing | State: convictions and sentences appropriate | Meinke: domestic violence and protection-order violation are allied offenses of similar import | Held moot due to reversal on instructional error; appellate court declined to decide (overruled as moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard of appellate review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review — evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Smith, 136 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio: State must prove defendant was served with protection order prior to alleged violation)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (omitted-element jury instructions are subject to harmless-error analysis)
- State v. Wamsley, 117 Ohio St.3d 388 (failure to instruct on all elements is a trial error, not structural)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error beyond a reasonable doubt standard)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (distinguishing structural errors from trial errors)