Case Summary: Criminal
Court has Jurisdiction over Criminal DV Case Despite Clerk’s Failure to Certify Filing of Case:
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeals and ruled that the trial court properly invoked its jurisdiction to hear a criminal DV case even though the clerk of courts had failed to date-stamp or time-stamp the criminal complaint. The court of appeals had previously held that the criminal judgment (guilty plea and sentence) against the defendant was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the criminal complaint was not properly “filed” in the absence of an endorsement from the clerk of courts that it had been filed. However, in the absence of a time- or date-stamp from the clerk, the question is whether there was sufficient evidence from which a court may determine that the document actually was filed. In this case, the clerk’s affidavit (based on the electronic docket sheet) and the creation of a new case file at the time of filing indicated that the complaint was filed on February 28, 2006. Based on these facts, the trial court correctly determined that the complaint had been filed and correctly overruled defendant’s motion to dismiss. Zanesville v. Rouse, 2010-Ohio-2218 (5th Dist., Muskingum, 5/26/2010).
Keywords: procedural defect, domestic violence
Date: 12/1/10
Expert Testimony of Shelter Director is Admissible in DV Prosecution:
The trial court properly found that Gail Heller, Executive Director of the CHOICES Domestic Violence Shelter in Columbus, Ohio, was a qualified expert in the field of domestic violence, and her testimony was admissible as part of the state’s case-in-chief. In her testimony, Heller explained why a victim might delay reporting incidents of abuse or leaving the abuser, i.e., fear, embarrassment and shame, including an explanation of the “cycle of violence” and the “power and control wheel” illustrating the psychodynamics of domestic violence. Heller was not required to explain why a victim might report having been physically abused but would delay in reporting having been sexually abused and/or raped. Rather, it was sufficient that Heller explained why a victim might delay in reporting any abuse. State v. Drew, 2008-Ohio-2797 (Tenth Dist., Franklin, 6/10/08).
Keywords: battered woman syndrome experts
Date: 10/24/08
Other Acts Evidence Admissible in DV Prosecution:
The testimony by several police officer, the victim, and other witnesses regarding numerous prior domestic violence incidents was admissible under Evidence Rule 404. Based on defendant’s contentions that the victim was accidentally injured during a struggle over a bottle of wine, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting prior acts evidence regarding defendant’s history of domestic violence to suggest that the victim’s injuries were not an accident. Moreover, as to defendant’s contentions that some of the other acts were inadmissible because they occurred more than ten years prior to the incident at issue, the Court of Appeals held that the other acts and the instant incident occurred “reasonably near to each other” because the testimony of other acts over a span of time showed intent and knowledge and clearly showed absence of a mistake or accident. State v. Vinson, 2008-Ohio-2523 (Ninth Dist., Summit, 5/28/08).
Keywords: pleading
Date: 10/24/08
Testimony of Expert Witness Admissible In DV Prosecution
The court of appeals rejected defendants argument that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to present expert testimony on "victim dynamics" and domestic violence. The expert witness, a state-registered victim advocate with advanced status, had a degree in social work and crisis counseling, and had close to 200;hours of specific training in various subjects, including victimization, sexual assault, child abuse and domestic violence. Over her career, she had dealt with several thousand domestic violence victims. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that she was qualified in matters involving domestic violence and the impact it has on abuse victims. Moreover, her expert testimony was relevant and helpful to the jury because it helped the jurors to understand the victims motives for wanting to minimize defendants actions and to recant her prior accusations. State v. Kraus, 2007-Ohio-6027 (12th App. Dist., Warren, 11/13/07).
Keywords: recant recantation recanting victim use of expert battered woman syndrome
Date: 3/27/2008
Victim Who Lived off and On With Defendant Is Person Living As A Spouse
The court of appeals affirmed defendants criminal DV conviction despite his contention that the admissible evidence did not show that he and the victim were cohabiting. The victim testified that she lived with defendant in Cleveland "off and on" for a period of nine months; they had a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship spanning a period of at least two years, which still existed at the time of trial; and she was driving his car and carrying his child. While the victims testimony was conflicting as to her residence, she did not claim to live anywhere besides defendants house either. Therefore, the evidence substantively established the cohabitation element of domestic violence. State v. McGrath, 2007-Ohio-4682 (8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga, 9/13/07).
Keywords: family member family or household member
Date: 3/27/2008
Reference To Gun Constituted DV Under Facts of Case
The court of appeals affirmed defendants DV conviction arising from defendants reference to his recently purchased gun and the victim-wifes belief that he would use that gun to harm her. At the time of the incident, two weeks had passed since the victim had filed for divorce against defendant. Defendant entered the house in an intoxicated state and began screaming obscenities at the victim, threatening to destroy property in the house. Defendant then spoke of a gun he had recently shown to the victim. ("Well, you remember the gun I showed you before.") Under the facts presented, a reasonable person would have been placed in fear of imminent physical harm following defendants reference to the firearm. State v. Simcox, 2007-Ohio-1217 (9th App. Dist., Wayne, 3/19/07).
Keywords: weapon threat
Date: 3/27/2008
Defendant May Be Convicted of Both DV and Felonious Assault
Defendant was properly convicted (and sentenced) for both domestic violence and felonious assault because they are not "allied offenses of similar import." They are not allied offenses of similar import because the elements of domestic violence and felonious assault do not correspond to such a degree that commission of one crime will necessarily result in the commission of the other. State v. Sandridge, 2006-Ohio-5243 (8th Dist., Cuyahoga, 10/5/06).
Keywords: sentencing multiple offenses punishment
Date: 4/4/2007
Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient To Prove Identity of Text Message Stalker
Defendant was properly convicted for violating the no-contact order in a domestic violence CPO based on circumstantial evidence that he repeatedly text-messaged the victim shortly after (on the same day) the CPO was issued against him. The victim recognized the phone number as being defendants phone number, no one other than the defendant had ever text-messaged her, and the content of the text messages concerned the protection order against the defendant and was written in the first person, referring to "I" and "me." Additionally, during the cross-examination of the defendant, he repeatedly referred to conversations between him and the victim that were subsequent to the issuance of the protection order, thus lending weight and credibility to the victims testimony that is was he who text-messaged her. Judgment of conviction affirmed. State v. McCaleb, 2006-Ohio-4652 (2nd Dist., Greene, 9/8/06).
Keywords: identification proof of identity civil protection order
Date: 4/4/2007
Pushingpulling A Person Not Enough To Justify A Conviction of DV
Defendants domestic violence conviction was overturned because the evidence of domestic violence was legally insufficient. Defendant had "pushed [the victim], drug her out of their house, and then threatened the children to leave the house with a board." Although this behavior was troubling, "[p]ushing or pulling a person, without evidence of anything more, is simply not enough to justify a conviction for domestic violence." State v. Dotson, 2006-Ohio-1093 (7th Dist., Columbiana, 2/21/06).
Keywords: definition, sufficiency, sufficiency of evidence
Date: 6/5/2006
Victim Was Family or Household Member of Defendant
Evidence was sufficient to support finding that the victim was Defendants family or household member even though she had told the housing authority that the Defendant did not reside with her. The victim testified that the Defendant resided with her when the DV incident occurred, her sister corroborated that testimony and the victim explained that she had lied to the housing authority because she was concerned that she would lose her benefits. Possible factors establishing shared familiar or financial representation, for purposes of establishing cohabitation, include provisions for shelter, food, clothing, utilities and commingled assets. These factors are unique to each case and how much weight, if any, to give to each of these factors must be decided on a case-by-case basis by the trier of fact. Courts should also be guided by common sense and ordinary experience. State v. Woullard, 158 Ohio App.3d 31, 2004-Ohio-3395 (2nd Dist., Greene, 2004).
Keywords:
Date: 4/1/2005
Cleveland v. Glenn
Criminal Complaint May Be Amended to Add Victims Name: Defendant requested dismissal of the domestic violence criminal complaint because no victim was named in the complaint. The prosecutor moved to amend the complaint to include the victims name. The trial court exercised its discretion to grant the amendment, which resolved the defendants motion to dismiss without prejudice and without misleading the defendant. Cleveland v. Glenn, 126 Ohio Misc. 2d 43, 2003-Ohio-6956.
Keywords: confidentiality
Date: 10/4/2004
State v. Compton
DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Defendants disorderly conduct conviction was overturned because it is not a "lesser-included" offense of domestic violence. Defendant had not also been charged with disorderly conduct, and so could not be found guilty of it. State v. Compton (2003) 153 Ohio App.3d 512.
Keywords:
Date: 1/12/2004
Ohio v. Dunderman
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE NOT ELEVATED TO A FELONY: Defendants fifth degree felony (elevated from first degree misdemeanor) was struck down by the appellate court. To elevate a domestic violence offense to a felony, O.R.C. 2919.25 commands the state to prove the prior conviction was for domestic violence, an enumerated offense, or an offense "substantially similar" to domestic violence. Defendant was convicted of violating a village ordinance and his first degree misdemeanor was elevated to a fifth degree felony per O.R.C. 2919.25, but the state failed to offer the trier of fact any evidence that the ordinance was "substantially similar" to a domestic violence offense. Ohio v. Dunderman, No. 11-03-01 (Paulding, 3rd Dist., 6/30/03).
Keywords: penalty enhancement,elevation,repeat offender,sexual offender,enhances,enhancement
Date: 1/12/2004
State v. Lampe
EXCITED UTTERANCE: Defendants conviction for domestic violence was affirmed because (1) his conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of each witness, (2) the trial courts decision to admit the victims excited utterances as a hearsay exception was reasonable because she was in shock when the statements were made, and (3) his arrest was not unconstitutional because the officer had reasonable cause to believe he had committed the offense. State v. Lampe, No. C-020708 (Hamilton, 1st Dist., 6/13/2003)
Keywords: hearsay,out-of-court statement
Date: 1/12/2004
DV Conviction Upheld Based On Victims Testimony
The appellant-husband appealed his conviction for domestic violence claiming that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The husband claimed that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of domestic violence because the wife's testimony was not credible. At the hearing, both parties testified to the incident. The police officer who arrived at the scene also testified and corroborated most of the wife's version of the events. The trial court stated that although it did not believe all of the wife's testimony, it was not required to disregard her entire version of the events. The appellate court stated that the credibility of a witness is a decision primarily for the trier of fact. A trial court may believe all, part or none of the testimony of each witness. The appellate court concluded that the trial court must have believed at least a part of the wife's testimony. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. State v. Lampe, 2003-Ohio-3059, 2003 WL 21360725, No. C-020708 (1st Dist. Ct. App., Hamilton, 6-13-03).
Keywords:
Date: 9/19/2003
Defendant May Cross-examine Victim About Prior False DV Accusations:
The victim was defendant's ex-wife. The trial court refused to admit evidence of five prior false domestic-violence charges brought against defendant by the victim. The court of appeals ruled that, under Ohio R. Evid. 608(B), a defendant was permitted, in the court's discretion, to cross-examine a victim about prior false accusations, if they were clearly probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. Here, the trial court erred, as the prior false charges were highly probative of whether the victim was telling the truth in this instance. The evidence was also admissible under Ohio R. Evid. 616(A) to show the victim's bias, prejudice, interest, or motive for misrepresentation. Moreover, the victim's testimony about the incident was inconsistent. The victim asked defendant to provide transportation for her after defendant allegedly assaulted her. Other witnesses who saw the victim after the alleged incident did not see any marks from the alleged violence. The appellate court found that, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice, thus requiring a reversal and remand for a new trial. State v. Husseln, (52 Ohio App. 3D 67, 2003), (Hamilton, 1st App. Dist.).
Keywords: cross examination, cross-exam, relevance, relevancy
Date: 5/16/2003
Out of Court Statements Admissible As Excited Utterances:
An officer, after a 911 call, arrived at a residence and spoke with the victim, defendant's elderly mother. The victim was shaken, and spoke in a submissive tone of voice. The victim had called the police because defendant had pushed her down. The granddaughter told the officer that defendant had pushed down the victim and called her names. At trial, the victim did not recall precisely how she fell, but admitted that defendant had pushed her down. Out of court statements made by the victim and her granddaughter were allowed into evidence over defense objection. The appellate court held the dispute that had taken place produced a state of nervous excitement in both the victim and her granddaughter sufficient to result in a spontaneous declaration to the officer responding to the 911 call. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to find that the out of court statements were admissible into evidence under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. City of Cleveland v. Thomas, 2003 Ohio 30 (Cuyahoga, 8th App. Dist., 01/09/03).
Keywords: hearsay, spontaneous declaration
Date: 5/16/2003
Victims Interference With Custody Is Not An Affirmative Defense
The court of appeals ruled that the trial court erred in giving an instruction that an affirmative defense to domestic violence charges existed based on protecting the defendants legal rights to visitation with his minor children. Specifically, in a domestic violence context, the interference with custody defense would ostensibly permit a parent to physically harm another parent in any dispute regarding the visitation where the childs health or safety is conceivably at issue. Resorting to physical force is not an acceptable course of domestic conduct absent the proper degree of proof that a party or the child is in immediate danger of bodily harm pursuant to the standards for establishing self-defense or defense of others. State v. Streight, 02-LW-0412, No. 2-01-23 (Auglaize, 3rd App.Dist., 2/14/2002).
Keywords:
Date: 11/4/2002
Probable Cause To Arrest
A victim's appearance and statements alone may be sufficient for a police officer to have probable cause to believe that domestic battery has occurred and to make an arrest. United States of America v. Cowdin, 1984 F.Supp. 1374 (D. Kan., 1997).
Keywords: reasonable cause
Date: 4/23/2002
Battering Creates Defense To Abuse Charge, But Not Neglect
Experts testified that after years of severe abuse by husband, wife lost confidence in her judgment, came to see herself as having few options, and lost the ability to protect herself and the children. Court found she did not condone husband's sexual abuse of children, and was powerless to stop it, so court acquitted her of child abuse charge. However, court found her guilty of neglecting the children, a strict liability offense, by providing inadequate protection from the father. In re Glenn G. and Josephine G., 587 N.Y.S.2d 464 (NY 1992).
Keywords: failure to protect, permitting child abuse
Date: 4/23/2002
Child's Excited Utterance Admissible
The court of appeals affirmed mother's conviction of domestic violence and rejected her claim that her four-year-old daughter's statement to her father that mother had hit her in the teeth was inadmissible hearsay. The child made the statement immediately upon reuniting with her father, after visitation with her mother. The child was upset and crying very hard at the time she made the statement. Since these circumstances were highly probative of a lack of fabrication, the child's statement was admissible pursuant to the excited utterance exception. Also, there is a trend toward more liberal requirements for the excited utterance exception when applied to young children. State v. Buchanan, Case No. CA98-09-077 (Clermont 5/17/99).
Keywords: evidence, child victim
Date: 4/23/2002
Prior Conduct Admissible
In a first degree murder case against the victim's ex-lover that discusses many of the evidentiary issues that often arise in domestic violence-cases, California established a "domestic violence exception" to rules against admission of prior conduct by the defendant. The exception applies where the prior incidents involved the same victim and assailant, to prove motive, ill will, or other elements of the crime. People v. Zack, 184 CA3d 409, 229 CR 317 (1986).
Keywords: past acts, evidence
Date: 4/23/2002
Mailing As Harassment
A man with a history of committing domestic violence against wife and violating restraining order, while jailed on charges of breaking into his wife's home, mailed two packages of court documents to wife, including torn-up copies of her support order, was convicted of harassment. New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, saying the mailings did not invade the wife's privacy to extent envisioned by harassment statute. However, it agreed with trial court that mailings violated the domestic violence no-contact restraining order. New Jersey v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 695 A.2d 236 (1997).
Keywords: mail
Date: 4/23/2002
Expert Explanation of Effects of DV
Expert testimony may be used to explain the effects of violence upon domestic violence victims. State v. Searles, 680 A.2d 612, 57 -A.L.R.5th 819 (N.H. 1996). Expert testimony on battered woman's syndrome admissible to bolster challenged testimony of rape complainant. State v. Ciskie, 751 P.2d 1165 (Wash. 1988). Expert testimony on battered woman's syndrome admissible to explain why abuse victim recanted her testimony at trial. Acoran v. U.S., 929 F.2d 1235 (8th Cir.), cert denied, 112 S.Ct. 312 (1991).
Keywords: experts, battered woman syndrome
Date: 4/23/2002
Destroying Marital Property Is Crime
Several states have held for purposes of criminal prosecution that a person may be charged with destroying property that the defendant co-owns with another person. It is not a defense that the defendant had an interest in marital property that he destroyed. People v. Schneider, 487 N.E.2d 379 (111. App. 1985); State v. Webb, 824 P.2d 1257 (Wash. App. 1992); Arizona v. Superior Ct. of Arizona, 936 P.2d 558 (Ariz. App. 1997).
Keywords: destruction
Date: 4/23/2002
Must Be Threat of Imminent Physical Harm
Defendant's conviction was reversed because victim did not believe that defendant's threat of physical harm was imminent. Victim's fear stemmed from her belief that some time, somewhere, he might harm her or her property. In other words, her fear related to potential future conduct, not to conduct believed to be imminent. State v. Strunk, Case No. C-980240 (Hamilton 12/15/98).
Keywords: fear, danger
Date: 4/23/2002
Subjective Belief That Harm Is Imminent Is Sufficient For Conviction
A victim's subjective belief that harm is imminent is enough for conviction. "A close analysis of the law, however, does not establish an absolute requirement that to sustain a domestic violence threat conviction, the state must prove the accused's ability to carry out the threat imminently and/or movement toward carrying it out. Instead, the critical inquiry is whether or not the proof fully evidences a reasonable belief by the victim that the accused will cause imminent physical harm." State v. Taylor, 79 Ohio Misc. 2d 82, 671 N.E. 2d 343, 345 (1996).
Keywords: fear, danger
Date: 4/23/2002
Conditional Threat Insufficient For Conviction
Defendant did not commit domestic violence by telling his wife, "I'd probably have to blow your head off to get you to shut up," where there was no evidence he attempted to carry out threat or physically harmed wife. Prosecutor must show that the victim believed the offender would cause her imminent physical harm at the time the incident took place, under R.C. 2919.25(C). Hamilton v. Cameron (Butler 1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 445.
Keywords: fear, danger, threat
Date: 4/23/2002
Past Acts Admissible; Conditional Threat Sufficient To Convict
For cases brought under R.C. 2919.25(C). evidence of specific "other acts" against the same victim are admissible to prove the element of the victim's belief that the offender will cause imminent physical harm. Conditional threat ("If I had a gun, I would shoot you.") can constitute violation of menacing laws. State need not prove defendant's ability to carry out threats or any movement toward carrying it out. State v. Collie, (Hamilton 1996) 108 Ohio App. 3d 580.
Keywords: fear, danger
Date: 4/23/2002
Proof Not Required of Ability To Carry Out Conditional Threat
Trial court, J. Timothy S. Black, ruled the critical inquiry in a criminal domestic violence case is whether or not the proof fully evidences a reasonable belief by the victim that the accused will cause imminent physical harm. Conditional threat ("I'm going to get your ass killed") can constitute violation of menacing laws. It is not an absolute requirement that the state prove the accused's ability to carry out the threat imminently and/or movement toward carrying it out. State v. Taylor (Hamilton County Municipal 1996), 79 Ohio Misc.2d 82.
Keywords: fear
Date: 4/23/2002
Prior Conduct Admissible
Trial court, J. Timothy S. Black, ruled that defendant's five prior convictions for crimes of violence against the same victim were admissible as proof of element of crime charged (victim's reasonable fear), and to prove intent, motive and/or absence of mistake or accident. State v. Johnson (Hamilton County Municipal Court 1994), 73 Ohio Misc.2d 1.
Keywords: evidence, past acts
Date: 4/23/2002
"reside" Means Intending To Permanently Dwell With One Another
Domestic violence conviction was overturned because no evidence was introduced to show that defendant was, or had been at one time, a permanent or continuous resident of the household. Criminal statutes must be strictly construed against the State and liberally construed in favor of the accused. Moreover, the term "reside" generally means to "remain or stay, to dwell permanently or continuously." The victim had testified that respondent (her victim) would come and visit about once a month, but "never lived there." State of Ohio v. Toles, Case No. 99CA9 (Gallia 12/08/99).
Keywords: residence
Date: 4/23/2002
DV Conviction Overturned Because of Gender Bias
The court of appeals overturned a man's domestic violence conviction because the prosecutor, in exercising his three peremptory challenges, created an all-female jury, and the trial court erred in failing to require the prosecutor to present a gender-neutral reason for the peremptory challenges and in failing to make a determination on purposeful discrimination. State v. Heropulos, Case No. 1998CA00254 (Stark 7/19/99).
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
Denial of Bail For Domestic Violence offenders Upheld
Washington's highest court has unanimously upheld a Spokane County rule that all domestic violence offenders be held without bail until their first court appearance. Counsel in the case said that until the no-bail rule was adopted, domestic violence defendants would often pay a $50 to $75 fine and be released before the victim was discharged from a hospital emergency room. Counsel also cited studies showing that 22 to 35% of women who seek emergency room care do so due to domestic violence, and that 32% are victimized a second time within six months. Westerman v. Cary, Case No. 60383-9 (Wash Supreme Ct 11/22/94).
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
Court Failed To Do Proper Balancing When It Refused To Seal DV Record
The language of 2953.52 requires that the court weigh both the states interest and the individuals interest in having the records sealed. These interests are on an equal footing, and there is no presumption in favor of keeping the records public. Since the trial court relied on a presumption, the decision to keep the DV records public was remanded. State v. Tyler, Case No. 00AP-1331, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2869 (Franklin 6/28/01).
Keywords: sealing, expungement, expunge
Date: 4/17/2002
Jury Waiver Need Not Be Filed By Time of Trial
The trial court complied with 2945.05 as the defendants waiver of a jury trial occurred before trial, and it was filed, time-stamped, and contained in the record. There is no requirement that the waiver be filed and placed on the record before trial. Therefore, defendant was properly tried and convicted for DV. State v. Miller, Case No. 79788, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 715 (Cuyahoga 2/21/02).
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
Minimal Acts May Support Conviction
A defense that infraction was "de minimis" rejected, since single slap to the face can constitute *physical abuse within meaning of statute, State v. Ornellas, 903 P.2d 723 (Haw. Ct. App.. 1995), cert. denied, 907 P.2d 773 (1995). Sending a letter to the victim in violation of a no-contact order can support a conviction. State v. Hauge, 547 N.W.2d 173 (South Dakota 1996). A telephone call from defendant to victim in which he said he would make her pay for her rudeness to him constituted a credible threat with the intent to place victim in reasonable fear for her safety. People v. Halgren, 52 CA4th 1223. 61 CR2d 176 (1996). Repeated phone calls in violation of a protection order supports jury verdict convicting defendant. State v. Scott, 574 N.W.2d 595 (South Dakota 1998).
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
Cohabitant's Duty To Retreat
After lengthy domestic violence history, an Athens County woman shot to death her live-in boyfriend with his own gun in their mobile home. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that one has no duty to retreat from one's own home before resorting to lethal violence in order to claim self-defense, when attacked by a cohabitant who has an equal right to be in the home. In the case of domestic violence, escape from the home is rarely possible without the threat of great personal violence or death. Dissenting Justices Pfeiffer and Cook said cohabitants should be obliged to "retreat to the wall" before defending themselves with deadly force. State v. Thomas (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 323.
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
de Facto Separation Sufficient To Establish Trespass
In an aggravated murder case, the trial court dismissed all aggravated burglary related charges on the basis that a spouse cannot be convicted of trespass into the marital residence unless a court order exists barring such access. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that a de facto separation can bar entry as much as a de jure separation, and a spouse may be convicted of trespass even though no court order exists banning him from the premises. State v. ONeal, 103 Ohio App.3d 151 (Hamilton 1995).
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
Lesser Included offense of Disorderly Conduct
Disorderly conduct is not a lesser included offense of domestic violence; the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. State v. Milano-Tavella, Case No. 98CAC05024 (Delaware 7/31/99).
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
