T.V. v. R.S.
2021 Ohio 2444
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Petitioner T.V. obtained an ex parte temporary civil stalking protection order under R.C. 2903.214; a full hearing was held and a magistrate granted a five-year CSPO, adopted by the trial court.
- T.V. testified that R.S. was physically and mentally abusive during their relationship, that he purchased a gun, and that he previously physically assaulted her.
- After the breakup, R.S. engaged in a pattern of conduct: repeated unwanted calls/texts (including from burner phones after being blocked), unannounced entries and visits (including using a copied apartment key), public confrontations, threats to expose her probation and false accusations to third parties, and direct threats to kill T.V. and her partner.
- T.V. described resulting mental distress (crying, insomnia, hypervigilance, hiding at work) and intended to seek therapy; friends and her boyfriend corroborated her fear and emotional decline.
- The trial court found the evidence (including but not relying on text exhibits) sufficient to show menacing by stalking and entered the CSPO; R.S. appealed, raising sufficiency, manifest-weight, and authentication arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (T.V.) | Defendant's Argument (R.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Did evidence show R.S. knowingly caused T.V. to believe he would cause physical harm or caused mental distress? | T.V.: her testimony and corroboration show a pattern of conduct that caused reasonable fear and substantial mental distress. | R.S.: evidence insufficient because T.V. continued social activities, had intermittent contact with him, and was not in treatment. | Court: Affirmed — evidence, if believed, was sufficient to prove knowing conduct causing fear and mental distress. |
| Manifest weight: Was the CSPO against the manifest weight given alleged inconsistencies and credibility issues? | T.V.: corroborating witnesses and consistent testimony support credibility and weight. | R.S.: witnesses were inconsistent and T.V. was deceitful about post-breakup contact, so court lost its way. | Court: Affirmed — credibility is for the factfinder; trial court did not abuse its discretion. |
| Authentication/admission of text-message exhibits: Were screenshots properly authenticated and admissible? | T.V.: she identified the screenshots as messages from R.S.; she explained limited redaction for privacy. | R.S.: screenshots were not properly authenticated and redactions undermined authenticity; their admission overwhelmed the record. | Court: Affirmed — threshold authentication satisfied; court noted it did not rely on texts and, in any event, redacted photos did not defeat admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standards for sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (definition of manifest-weight review)
- State v. Myers, 114 N.E.3d 1138 (Ohio 2018) (missing pages or redactions do not necessarily defeat authentication/admissibility)
- State v. Wunsch, 832 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio App. 2005) (expert testimony not required to prove mental distress; factfinder may rely on experience)