Z.J. v. R.M., 2023 Ohio 3552

Background

Petitioner Z.J. filed for a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) on Nov. 8, 2021, seeking protection for himself and two minor children against Respondent R.M. amid a familial breakup and R.M.’s relationship with Z.J.’s soon-to-be ex-wife.
Magistrate held an ex parte order, then a full hearing on Dec. 14, 2021 and Jan. 4, 2022; Z.J. represented himself; R.M. had counsel.
Core incidents supporting the CSPO: R.M. parked on his motorcycle outside Z.J.’s house revving the engine until Z.J. came out; R.M. accosted/followed Z.J. and his girlfriend in a Kroger pharmacy line and about the store; there was mutual name-calling and provocative gestures (including R.M. taunting Z.J. to hit him).
Magistrate granted the civil stalking protection order; the sexual‑abuse allegations were not sustained. Trial court overruled R.M.’s objections but modified the church-attendance term.
R.M. appealed raising five assignments of error: (1) denial of motion to dismiss at close of plaintiff’s case, (2) CSPO improper under R.C. 2903.211 because no actual mental distress shown, (3) finding that Z.J. believed R.M. intended to cause mental distress was against manifest weight, (4) statute void for vagueness, (5) due‑process notice defect.
The trial court found a pattern of conduct (two or more incidents) and that R.M. knowingly caused Z.J. to believe he would cause physical harm or mental distress and issued the CSPO; the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Z.J.)	Defendant's Argument (R.M.)	Held
1. Motion to dismiss at close of plaintiff’s case	Evidence showed pattern of conduct; dismissal not warranted	Trial court should have dismissed because statute requires showing of actual mental distress	Denial of Civ.R. 41(B)(2) motion affirmed; court may weigh evidence and render judgment
2. Whether statute requires petitioner to have actually experienced mental distress	Belief that respondent would cause distress suffices under prior precedent	Statute requires actual mental distress before CSPO may issue	Court held statute does not require petitioner to have suffered actual mental distress to obtain CSPO (relied on prior district precedent)
3. Manifest weight: did evidence support that Z.J. believed R.M. would cause harm/distress	Testimony and incidents (motorcycle, Kroger accosting, taunts) made belief reasonable	Evidence insufficient; findings against manifest weight	Affirmed: competent, credible evidence supported trial court’s discretionary finding
4. Vagueness of R.C. 2903.211	Statute gives fair notice of proscribed conduct	Statute unconstitutionally vague, allows arbitrary interpretation	Rejected: statute provides sufficiently definite warning to ordinary person
5. Due process / notice of allegations	Petition provided notice of harassment/stalking of family members; R.M. had chance to respond at two hearings	Complaint lacked specificity so R.M. could not defend	Rejected: R.M. had adequate notice, opportunity to cross-examine and present defense; issues tried by consent

Key Cases Cited

Canter v. Wolfe, 69 N.E.3d 1061 (Ohio App.) (trial court may weigh evidence when ruling on Civ.R. 41(B)(2) motion)
Levine v. Beckman, 548 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio App.) (standard for dismissal at close of plaintiff’s case)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978) (manifest-weight review: judgment supported by competent, credible evidence will not be reversed)
Myers v. Garson, 614 N.E.2d 742 (Ohio 1993) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
City of Norwood v. Horney, 853 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio 2006) (vagueness test: whether ordinary person has fair notice)
State v. Carrick, 965 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 2012) (statutes that fail to inform person of prohibited conduct violate due process)
Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1951) (impossible specificity not required; law must give sufficiently definite warning)