Strongsville v. N.D.
2016 Ohio 7484
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Nick Dolbin was charged in Berea Municipal Court with domestic violence; the court issued a temporary protection order (TPO) in that domestic-violence case prohibiting contact with his wife.
- The City of Strongsville later charged Dolbin with violating the TPO (R.C. 2919.27) based on his electronically submitting a job application to his wife’s employer, which she supervised.
- Dolbin was acquitted at jury trial of the underlying domestic-violence charges; the TPO case record (and the TPO itself) from that underlying case was not transmitted to this appellate court.
- In the TPO‑violation bench trial, the trial court referenced the TPO’s terms (without the TPO being admitted into evidence) and found Dolbin guilty; Dolbin moved to dismiss pretrial arguing the TPO was invalid and procedurally deficient.
- On appeal, the court addressed three issues: (1) whether the municipal court had subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the TPO; (2) whether Dolbin was denied due process in issuance of the TPO; and (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for violating the TPO.
- The appellate court upheld jurisdiction and due process (in the absence of the prior record) but reversed on sufficiency because the TPO was not admitted and the court improperly relied on judicial notice and testimony not offered substantively to prove the TPO’s terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction to issue TPO | Municipal court had authority under R.C. 1901.18(A)(9) and R.C. 2919.26 to issue a TPO in a domestic-violence complaint | TPO was invalid because required statutory predicate/hearing was not followed | Court: Jurisdiction proper; domestic violence is an "offense of violence" allowing TPO issuance |
| Due process in issuing TPO | Court may issue TPO sua sponte under R.C. 2919.26(D)(1); absence of prior-filed record means regularity is presumed | TPO issued without victim or officer moving and without statutorily required hearing | Court: No reversible due-process error on this record; presumes regularity because underlying file/transcript not provided |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict under R.C. 2919.27 | Evidence showed Dolbin submitted application to wife’s employer in violation of TPO; officer testimony confirmed TPO prohibited contact with employer | Conviction improper because TPO terms were not admitted into evidence and court improperly took judicial notice; officer testimony was non‑substantive hearsay re: TPO terms | Court: Reversed — insufficient evidence because TPO was not admitted/stipulated and court improperly relied on judicial notice and non‑substantive testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (appellate record completeness presumption when necessary parts are missing)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (distinguishing sufficiency from weight of the evidence)
- Phillips v. Rayburn, 113 Ohio App.3d 374 (limitations on judicial notice of prior proceedings)