Tupps v. Jansen
2013 Ohio 1403
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Tupps filed a petition for an ex parte CSPO against Jansen; ex parte CSPO granted.
- A full hearing was held on March 9, 2012 before a magistrate; witnesses included Rowe, Tupps, and Jansen.
- Jansen is Tupps’ uncle; incidents occurred on a rural street with three houses nearby.
- Tupps testified to speeding, gravel, and pointing incidents by Jansen; threats via phone on Feb. 17, 2012 were alleged.
- Rowe testified to threatening phone calls by Jansen; February 27, 2012 incident involved Jansen stopping near Tupps’ driveway and pointing.
- The magistrate found a pattern of conduct causing fear and mental distress, issuing a CSPO March 26, 2012, effective until Sept. 9, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a pattern of conduct constituting menacing by stalking | Tupps: incidents amounted to a pattern of conduct. | Jansen: no pattern; conduct was isolated. | Evidence supported a pattern of conduct. |
| Whether the CSPO was supported by the preponderance of the evidence | Tupps: facts showed probable cause of harm or distress. | Jansen: insufficient evidence of knowing harm. | CSPO upheld; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Scruggs, 136 Ohio App.3d 631 (2nd Dist. 2000) (pattern may arise from closely related events on same date; intervals matter)
- Middletown v. Jones, 167 Ohio App.3d 679 (2006-Ohio-3465) (contextual analysis of ‘closely related in time’)
- Guthrie v. Long, 2005-Ohio-1541 (10th Dist. 2005) (courts consider totality of circumstances)
- Tumblin v. Jackson, 2006-Ohio-3270 (5th Dist. 2006) (preponderance standard for CSPO requests)
- Olenik v. Huff, 2003-Ohio-4621 (5th Dist. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard on appeals of protective orders)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (proof standard; weight of evidence governs reversal)