Case Summaries: Stalking - Stalking Civil Protection Orders
Dennis v. Paulsen
Dennis v. Paulsen, 2009-Ohio-2916 (4th Dist., Hocking, 6/17/09) (trial court precluded from renewing or continuing civil stalking protection order for three additional years, even though only nine days remain on original three-year order, where the resulting total of six years would exceed the five-year maximum imposed by statute for a civil stalking protection order).
Keywords: renewal extension duration
Date: 3/19/2010
Nguyen v. Chaffee
Nguyen v. Chaffee, 2009-Ohio-3352 (7th Dist., Columbiana, 6/30/09) (denial of civil stalking protection order against neighbor affirmed because alleged stalking victim had not actually seen her neighbor steal her flowers, leave garbage on her doorstep, or vandalize her car).
Keywords: "identity of stalker" "burden of proof"
Date: 3/19/2010
Vance v. Nichols
Vance v. Nichols, 2007-Ohio-3819 (2nd App. Dist., Darke, 7/27/07) (issuance of CSPO reversed by court of appeals because respondent was denied reasonable opportunity to be heard after her request for continuance to obtain legal counsel and request time off from employer was denied by trial court).
Keywords: "stalking civil protection order" "civil stalking protection order" "due process"
Date: 5/30/2008
Gaietto v. Novacek
Gaietto v. Novacek, 2008-Ohio-519 (3rd App. Dist., Seneca, 2/11/08) (Full hearing CSPO vacated because it was based on petitioners allegations in her petition without court testimony and based on the judges mistaken assumption that the magistrate had taken sworn testimony during the ex parte hearing).
Keywords: "stalking civil protection order" "civil stalking protection order" "CSPO" "SCPO" evidence "burden of proof"
Date: 5/30/2008
Hamlin-scanlon v. Taylor
Hamlin-Scanlon v. Taylor, 2008-Ohio-411 (9th App. Dist., Summit, 2/6/08) (Concurrent jurisdiction of domestic relations and general divisions of common pleas court over stalking CPO petitions brought by mother on behalf of herself and her two children against her former husband).
Keywords: "stalking civil protection order" "civil stalking protection order" "forum shopping"
Date: 5/30/2008
Jones v. Jordan
Jones v. Jordan, 2007-Ohio-2519 (8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga, 5/24/07) (issuance of CSPO reversed by court of appeals because of lack of personal jurisdiction over respondent where respondent did not receive service of ex parte order and notice of hearing until several hours after the scheduled hearing).
Keywords: "stalking civil protection order" "civil stalking protection order" "SCPO" "CSPO" "due process"
Date: 5/30/2008
Roncone v. Bialkowski
Roncone v. Bialkowski, 2007-Ohio-3326 (10th App. Dist., Franklin, 6/29/2007) (issuance of CSPO reversed by court of appeals because trial court abused its discretion in denying respondents motion for a continuance of the full hearing after his counsel withdrew in the middle of the hearing).
Keywords: "stalking civil protection order" "civil stalking protection order" "due process"
Date: 5/30/2008
Gruber v. Hart
Gruber v. Hart, 2007-Ohio-873 (6th App. Dist., Ottawa, 3/2/2007) (pattern of conduct required for issuance of SCPO need not cause actual mental distress; only need prove that stalker caused victim to believe that he would cause the victim mental distress or physical harm).
Keywords: civil stalking protection order standard of proof burden of proof
Date: 3/27/2008
Roncone v. Bialkowski
Roncone v. Bialkowski, 2007-Ohio-3326 (10th App. Dist., Franklin, 6/29/2007) (issuance of CSPO reversed by court of appeals because trial court abused its discretion in denying respondents motion for a continuance of the full hearing after his counsel withdrew in the middle of the hearing).
Keywords: civil stalking protection order due process
Date: 3/27/2008
Vance v. Nichols
Vance v. Nichols, 2007-Ohio-3819 (2nd App. Dist., Darke, 7/27/07) (issuance of CSPO reversed by court of appeals because respondent was denied reasonable opportunity to be heard after her request for continuance to obtain legal counsel and request time off from employer was denied by trial court).
Keywords: civil stalking protection order due process
Date: 3/27/2008
Jones v. Jordan
Jones v. Jordan, 2007-Ohio-2519 (8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga, 5/24/07) (issuance of CSPO reversed by court of appeals because of lack of personal jurisdiction over respondent where respondent did not receive service of ex parte order and notice of hearing until several hours after the scheduled hearing).
Keywords: civil stalking protection order
Date: 3/27/2008
Van Force v. Van Force
2004 WL 2377839, 2004-Ohio-5646, No. 2-04-11 (Auglaize, 3rd Dist., 10/25/2004) (Burden of proof for a stalking CPO is by a preponderance of the evidence).
Keywords:
Date: 8/18/2005
Derolph v. Cirillo
2004 WL 2348509, 2004-Ohio-5564, No. 2004CA00014 (Liking, 5th Dist., 10/18/2004) (Burden of proof for a stalking CPO is by a preponderance of the evidence).
Keywords:
Date: 8/18/2005
Harris v. Miami County Sheriffs Department
160 Ohio App.3d, 2005-Ohio-1713 (2nd Dist., Miami, 4/08/2005) Stalking consent agreement CPO is valid and triggers gun ban against respondent, but violation of stalking consent agreement CPO is not a criminal violation under R.C. 2919.27.
Keywords: SCPO,civil protection order
Date: 8/18/2005
Baker v. Inman Iii
2004 WL 2616419, 2004-Ohio-6133, No. 04CAE06045 (Delaware, 5th Dist., 11/10/2004) (Petitioner not entitled to stalking CPO because she failed to establish some temporary substantial incapacity or mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, despite evidence that she felt compelled to change her cell phone and home phone numbers and felt increased stress).
Keywords: grounds,elements,evidence
Date: 8/18/2005
Bucksbaum v. Mitchell
2004 WL 943865, 2004-Ohio-2233, No. 2003-CA-0070 (Richland, 5th Dist., 4/27/2004) (Burden of proof for stalking CPO is by a preponderance of the evidence).
Keywords:
Date: 8/18/2005
Smith v. Hensel
Case Nos. 04-COA-077 and 04-COA-078, 2005-Ohio-3465 (5th Dist., Ashland, 7/06/2005). Respondent consented to courts personal jurisdiction for issuance of a stalking CPO against her by appearing at the court hearing and telling the court that had she known [petitioners] had filed petitions against her, she "would have filed petitions against them."
Keywords: waiver,appearance,civil protection order
Date: 8/18/2005
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
Coleridge v. Tomsho
2003 WL 294356 (5th Dist., 2/10/2003). (The 5th District Appellate Court found that there was sufficient evidence to justify a civil stalking protection order even though the petitioners boyfriend had never threatened her. The supporting evidence included testimony from the petitioner that her former boyfriend stalked her for more than a year. The court ruled that verbal threats were not a necessary element of establishing a fear that someone would cause physical harm or mental distress; rather, the trier of fact could infer that someone intended such a threat through his actions.)
Keywords: 2903.214, reasonable fear
Date: 5/15/2003
Bach v. Crawford
2003 WL 1193783 (2nd Dist., 2003). (Appellate court affirmed trial courts overruling of a magistrates decision granting a domestic violence civil protection order based on menacing by stalking. A perpetrator must knowingly engage in a pattern of conduct that causes another to believe that the offender would cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person. There was insufficient evidence of mental distress because there was no physical violence or threatening conduct. The only possible evidence of threatened physical violence in this case was the alleged perpetrators' reference to Lorena Bobbitt made prior to the end of the alleged perpetrators and alleged victims romantic relationship. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the complaining victim ever believed the perpetrator would cause him physical harm, given his recent attendance at a party very near her house and his failure to call the police to protect himself.)
Keywords: 2903.211, reasonable fear
Date: 5/15/2003
Mcdaniel v. Mcdaniel
2002 WL 31502097 (12th Dist., 11/12/2002). (Affirming a stalking civil protection order, finding that there was sufficient evidence of domestic violence.)
Keywords: 2903.214, pattern of conduct
Date: 5/15/2003
Striff v. Striff
2003 WL 397869 (2/21/2003). (Finding sufficient evidence to extend a stalking civil protection order even though there had been no physical altercations between the parties since the first institution of the stalking civil protection order.)
Keywords: 2903.211, reasonable fear
Date: 5/15/2003
Wallace v. Masten
2003 WL 927600 (4th Dist., 2/11/2003). (The appellate court affirmed the trial courts grant of a stalking civil protection order and specifically noted that explicit threats were not necessary to prove the essential elements of menacing by stalking under Ohio law. Although the court declined to rule on the constitutionality of a limitation on an individuals right to possess firearms once a violation of R.C. 2903.211 was proven, the court did find there was insufficient evidence to support the gun prohibition in this civil protection order, given that the stalker had never approached his victim with a firearm.)
Keywords: 2903.214, reasonable fear, mental distress
Date: 5/15/2003
Stalking CPO Vacated Because Trial Court Relied On Information Obtained In A Prior Proceeding and Not Part of Record
The court of appeals vacated a stalking civil protection order against one of the respondents, Misty Sheppard, because the trial court had relied on information in earlier juvenile court proceedings that was not part of the record in this case. Specifically, the trial court stated on the record that it had heard two prior actions in juvenile court over the same circumstances and was extremely familiar with the facts of this case. Thoroughly frustrated by the ongoing and repetitive nature of the trouble among these parties, the trial court explained to all that they had to leave each other alone or someone was going to end up in jail. The trial court issued a stalking CPO against all of the named respondents. Ms. Sheppard appealed, and the court of appeals reversed without addressing appellants other arguments relating to due process and the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. McCord v. Sheppard, et al., Case No. CA-02-005 (Morgan, 5th App.Dist., July 25, 2002).
Keywords: evidence,sufficient
Date: 11/7/2002
Decarlo, Et Al. v. Schilla
02-LW-3222, No. 80170 (Cuyahoga, 8th App.Dist., 8/15/2002) (burden of proof for stalking CPO is by a preponderance of the evidence).
Keywords:
Date: 10/30/2002
Huffer v. Chafin
02-LW-0212, No. 01-CA-74 (Licking, 5th App.Dist., 1/28/2002) (A preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies to the granting of a stalking civil protection order.)
Keywords: burden of proof
Date: 10/30/2002
Kramer v. Kramer
02-LW-3158, No. 13-02-03 (Seneca, 6th App.Dist., 8/27/2002) (Burden of proof for stalking CPO is by a preponderance of the evidence; explicit or direct threats of physical harm are not necessary to establish menacing by stalking.)
Keywords:
Date: 10/30/2002
Tuuri v. Snyder
02-LW-1665, No. 2000-G-2325 (Geauga, 11th App.Dist., 4/30/2002) (burden of proof in stalking CPO action is by a preponderance of the evidence).
Keywords:
Date: 10/30/2002
