Case Summaries: Stalking - Civil Protection Orders
In Re D. L., 189 Ohio App.3d 154 (6th Dist., Ottawa, 4/30/2010) (juvenile respondent in stalking CPO case entitled to appointed counsel to protect minor respondent’s due process rights).
Keywords: right to counsel, right to attorney, minor respondent, minor
Date: 3/28/11
Needhamer v. Carlozzi, 2010-Ohio-4562 (11th Dist., Lake, 9/24/2010) (stalking CPO supported by “some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence”).
Keywords: civil protection order, appeal, standard of review
Date: 3/28/11
Leone v. Owen
2010-Ohio-1888 (6th Dist., Ottawa, 4/30/2010) (minor respondent in stalking CPO case has due process rights to appointed counsel because “advice of counsel is warranted and necessary to protect a juvenile respondent in a civil protection order proceeding”).
Keywords: civil protection orders, right to counsel, appointment of counsel, right to attorney
Date: 12/1/10
Smith v. Hensel
Smith v. Hensel, 2005-Ohio-3465 (5th Dist., Ashland, 7/6/05). No abuse of discretion by common pleas court when it granted a stalking CPO against a party who had not been served before the full hearing but who attended the hearing to provide support for on of the parties, because she appeared in court for a purpose other than to object to jurisdiction when she informed the court that "had she known Smith and Riffle had filed petitions against her, she would have filed petitions against each of them."
Keywords: appearance, personal jurisdiction, service
Date: 6/5/2006
Hangen v. Mccaleb
Hangen v. McCaleb, 2006-WL-400134, 2006-Ohio-776 (2nd Dist., Greene, 2/17/06). Victims conduct subsequent to issuance of civil stalking protection order e.g., contacting stalker on various occasions could not serve as basis for appeal of trial courts decision.
Keywords:
Date: 6/5/2006
Berry v. Patrick
Berry v. Patrick, 2005-WL-1707005, 2005-Ohio-3708 (8th Dist., Cuyahoga, 7/21/05). Abuse of discretion for trial court to hold respondenta police officerin contempt of ex parte civil stalking protection order for coming within 500 yards of petitioners residence, where trial court conducted full hearing in three increments over a two-month period of time, trial court did not make a ruling until 8 months after petitioner filed her request, did not journalize its ruling until 13 months after petitioners filing, and ultimately found that petitioner did not establish the need for a permanent civil stalking protection order.
Keywords: enforcement, unreasonable delay
Date: 6/5/2006
State v. Ball
State v. Ball, 2006-Ohio-980 (2nd Dist., Montgomery, 3/3/06). Reversal of trial courts judgment entry of conviction for violating a protection order where the defendant had been arrested, charged, and convicted after an officer saw him driving by the victims house after the issuance of a stalking CPO containing a 500-yard "stay away" order, because the petitioner was not home at the time of the drive-by and respondent did not enter her house.
Keywords: stay-away, distance, violation
Date: 6/5/2006
