Case Summaries: Stalking - Constitutional Issues

State v. Barnhardt

2006-Ohio-4531 (9th Dist., Lorain, 9/5/2006) (Criminal menacing by stalking statute not unconstitutionally vague because definition of menacing by stalking is limited by scienter requirementoffender must act knowingly.).

Keywords: constitutionality vagueness overbreadth 2903.211

Date: 4/2/2007

Elliot v. Ball

2004 WL 2677464, 2004-Ohio-6300, No. 83896 (Cuyahoga, 8th Dist., 11/24/2004) (Denial of respondents motion for continuance violated respondents due process rights where respondent was a physician in a town three hours away, she had only received notice of the hearing less than two days before the hearing date, and one business day was insufficient time to seek local counsel).

Keywords:

Date: 3/24/2005

Lindsay v. Jackson

Case No. C-990786, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4043 (1st App. Dist., Hamilton, 9/08/2000). Stalking CPO Reversed Because of Inadequate Notice of Full Hearing and Denial of Due Process:; The Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts issuance of a Full Hearing Stalking CPO because the respondent did not receive adequate notice of the "full hearing" or a meaningful opportunity to present his side of the story. The Court of Appeals agreed with the respondents argument that "one business days notice of the hearing did not give him adequate time to prepare." In addition, the trial court did not inform the respondent that he had the right to cross-examine the petitioner or to present his own witnesses. While not holding that the trial court must specifically inform the respondent in every case of his or her rights, the Court of Appeals ruled that in light of the inadequate notice, the trial courts failure to inform the respondent of his rights denied this respondent due process.

Keywords: "civil protection order","adequate notice",continuance

Date: 3/30/2004

Henry v. Coogan

2002 WL 31682226 (12th Dist., 12/02/2002). (The accused had sufficient notice of the allegations against him, even though the pleadings did not contain the particular incidents he was alleged to have participated in. Additionally, the court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the protection order based on menacing by stalking under O.R.C. 2903.214 (D)(1).)

Keywords: 2903.214, pattern of conduct

Date: 5/15/2003

Dayton v. Smith

(Dayton Mun. Ct., 1994), 68 Ohio Misc.2d 20: Rejected constitutional challenge to statute on vagueness and over breadth grounds; statute not unconstitutionally over broad for intruding on First Amendment freedoms since exercising those freedoms with intent to cause another person harm was not protected by the First Amendment; statute not unconstitutionally vague because it required criminal intent that defendant be aware his/her conduct would cause victim harm, and pattern of conduct required for conviction, defined as two more incidents closely related in time, was not ambiguous.

Keywords: First Amendment, 1st Amendment, overly broad, closely related in time, overbroad

Date: 4/23/2002

State v. Bilder

(Summit, 9th Dist., 1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 653: Statute is not overbroad as applied to defendant's conduct because conduct exceeded mere speech in its purest form

Keywords: overly broad, First Amendment, 1st Amendment

Date: 4/23/2002

State v. Dario

(Hamilton, 1st Dist., 1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 232: Rejection of constitutional challenge to menacing by stalking statutes; statute not constitutionally overbroad because First Amendment does not protect type of activity prohibited and statute is not unconstitutionally vague because the level of intent required by statute mitigates any perceived vagueness.

Keywords: First Amendment, 1st Amendment, overly broad

Date: 4/17/2002

State v. Schwab

(Butler, 12th Dist., 1997), 119 Ohio App.3d 463: Statute not void for vagueness because it contains sufficient guidelines to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement and term "mental distress," while not easily defined and encompassing many distinguishable conditions, would put person of common or ordinary intelligence on notice as to what conduct was prohibited.

Keywords:

Date: 4/17/2002

State v. Smith

No. 96 C.A. 83, 1998WL78657 (Mahoning, 7th Dist., 2/11/98): Statute not subject to challenge on vagueness grounds or First Amendment free speech grounds based on conduct of an anti-abortion activist who followed the complainant doctor in his vehicle on several occasions, continually pulled up alongside the doctor's vehicle and stared, and on one occasion made a threatening statement, all causing the complainant to fear for his physical and mental well-being.

Keywords: First Amendment, 1st Amendment

Date: 4/17/2002

Kreuzer v. Kreuzer

(Greene, 2nd Dist., 7/13/01), 144 Ohio App.3d 610: The First Amendment does not protect speech that knowingly causes another to believe she faces physical harm or mental distress, even if the activity involves otherwise protected speech such as picketing.

Keywords: First Amendment, 1st Amendment

Date: 4/17/2002

Metzenbaum v. Vitantonio

(Cuyahoga, 8th Dist., 2/7/02), Nos. 79477, 79478, 79479, 79480 and 79481, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 462: Because Crim. Rule 4 makes no distinction between misdemeanors or felonies, the court did not err in holding a probable cause hearing; nothing within the rule gives complainant the right to question witnesses at probable cause hearing.

Keywords:

Date: 4/17/2002

State v. Benner

(Hamilton, 1st Dist., 1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 327: Rejected constitutional challenge to statute on vagueness grounds because it is not within protection of First Amendment's guarantee of free speech to knowingly cause another to believe that one will cause physical harm or mental distress to him/her by engaging in two more actions or incidents closely related in time, and statute does not chill constitutionally protected conduct..

Keywords: chilling, First Amendment, 1st Amendment

Date: 4/17/2002