Case Summaries: Constitutional Issues
DV CPO Statute is Not Void for Vagueness
R.C. 3113.31(A)(1), the Ohio statute governing domestic violence based on a threat of force, is not void for vagueness. Defendant contended that because the statutory prohibition against "placing another person by threat of force in fear of imminent serious physical harm" necessarily must take account of the reasonableness of another person’s subjective reactions, a court must determine each case not on a uniform standard but on an ad hoc basis. However, the statutory elements of domestic violence, taken together, are sufficiently definite to give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and to avoid the conduct the statute prohibits, which is a threat of force that is by its nature reasonably sufficient to place another person in fear of immediate and serious physical harm. Calicoat v. Calicoat, 2009-Ohio-5869 (2nd Dist., Miami, 11/06/09).
Keywords: "due process" notice "constitutional challenge"
Date: 4/6/2007
Unmarried Cohabitants Conviction For DV Is Not Unconstitutional
The court of appeals affirmed the defendants domestic violence conviction and rejected his constitutional challenge based on the Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA) to the Ohio Constitution (Article XV, Section 11). The intent of the DOMA was to prohibit same sex marriage; it has no application to criminal statutes or the domestic violence statute in particular. Moreover, in considering amendments, Ohio courts presume the body enacting the amendment is aware of existing constitutional and statutory provisions. Therefore, had the proponents intended to alter Ohios domestic violence law, they would have drafted the Marriage Amendment accordingly. Stae v. Adams, 2006-Ohio-6333 (5th Dist., Stark, 11/28/05). A similar ruling followed in State v. Brown, 2006-Ohio-1181 (5th Dist., Stark, 3/13/06).; In accord, State v. Ramirez, 2006-Ohio-5600 (1st Dist, Hamilton, 10/27/06); State v. Goshorn, 2006-Ohio-2755 (4th Dist, Ross, 5/23/06).
Keywords: state constitution discrimination Issue 1 person living as a spouse cohabitation unwed DOMA
Date: 4/6/2007
DV Statute Is Constitutional As Applied To Unmarried Couples
The court of appeals affirmed the defendants domestic violence conviction and rejected his constitutional challenge based on the Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA) to the Ohio Constitution (Article XV, Section 11). Where it is claimed that a statute is unconstitutional as applied, the challenge must present clear and convincing evidence of a presently existing set of facts that make the statute unconstitutional when applied to those facts. Moreover, the rules employed in statutory construction also apply to the construction of constitutional provisions, and in both cases the intent of the framers is controlling. Under that analysis, the words "family or household member" do not create a legal relationship between persons; they are simply descriptive of those individuals who are entitled to protection from criminal activity under the statute. Furthermore, although cohabitation can, and often does, involve married persons, non-marital relationships can involve cohabitation as well. The domestic violence statute also affords protection from assaults committed during other, nonmarital relationships, e.g., the relationship of a child to a parent or stepparent. For all these reasons, the trial courts judgment of conviction is affirmed. State v. Rodgers, 2006-Ohio-1528 (10th Dist., Franklin, 3/30/06).
Keywords:
Date: 6/5/2006
Trial Court Erred In Finding DV Statute Unconstitutional Because of Marriage Amendment
The court of appeals reversed the trial courts decision dismissing the domestic violence indictment of the defendant, and reinstated the original indictment for domestic violence. An enactment of the General Assembly is presumed to be constitutional, and before a court may declare it unconstitutional it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation and constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible. The trial court was required to give a reasonable construction to the constitutional amendment and Ohios domestic violence statute "so that both may stand." However, the trial court erroneously concluded that Ohios domestic violence statute confers a legal status that approximates "the design, qualities, significance or effective marriage." Ohios domestic violence statute is not a right to be free from family violence that stems from the legal status of marriage nor is it a crime that is born out of marriage alone. The determination of whether the defendant and the victim are "family or household members" turns on the particular facts of the couples relationship, not their legal status. Therefore, Ohios domestic violence statute, insofar as it defines "family or household member" to include unmarried individuals who live as spouses, is constitutional and coexists in harmony with the Marriage Amendment. State v. Burk, 164-Ohio-App.3d 740, 2005-Ohio-6727 (8th Dist., Cuyahoga, 12/20/05). Subsequently, the 8th Dist. Court of Appeals issued a similar ruling in Cleveland v. Voies, 2006-Ohio-815 (8th Dist., Cuyahoga, 2/23/06).
Keywords: : state constitution, discrimination, Issue 1, person living as a spouse, unwed, cohabitation, DOMA
Date: 6/5/2006
Court of Appeals Cannot Rule On Constitutionality of DV Statute As Applied To Unmarried Cohabitants
R.C. 2919.25(a) is not facially unconstitutional under the Marriage Amendment, Article XV, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution, since there are many factual scenarios to which this statute can constitutionally apply. Accordingly, the trial court erred when dismissing the domestic violence indictments in these cases. However, the court of appeals could not rule on the constitutionality of the statue as applied to the allegedly unmarried, cohabitating defendants until the particular facts of their cases are brought out. The trial courts decisions (in these two consolidated cases) were reversed and their cases were remanded for further proceedings. State v. Rexroad, 2005-Ohio-6790 (7th Dist., Columbiana, 12/13/05). See, also, a similar ruling in State v. McCaslin, 2006-Ohio-891 (7th Dist., Columbiana, 2/21/06).
Keywords: state constitution, discrimination, Issue 1, person living as a spouse, unwed, cohabitation, DOMA
Date: 6/5/2006
Vague Threats Sufficient To Constitute Stalking Pattern of Conduct
Trial court properly found that petitionerrespondents adult daughterand her children were in danger of domestic violence from petitioners mother. The respondent, who had been living for over a year with the petitioner and her children, threatened to make petitioners life a living hell, to make petitioner pay, came down with her fist at her side at petitioner, called petitioner a fucking bitch, and said petitioner would get what was coming to her, and would call Children Services. These recent incidents, when convicted in light of respondents past physical and emotional abuse of petitioner during her childhood, caused petitioner to believe that she and her own children were in imminent danger from her mother. Downs v. Strouse, 2006WL280417, 2006-Ohio-505 (10th Dist., Franklin, 2/07/06).
Keywords: pleading, sufficiency of allegations
Date: 6/5/2006
Appeals Court Reverses Trials Courts Determination That DV Statute Was Unconstitutional As Applied To Unmarried Individuals
The court of appeals reversed the common pleas courts decision amending the domestic violence count against the defendant to assault because of the supposed conflict between the domestic violence statute and the Marriage Amendment, Article XV, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution. Since the language of the constitutional amendment does not expressly overrule R.C. 2919.25 as it applies to unmarried, cohabitating individuals, the issue is whether the amendment overruled R.C. 2919.25 by implication. There is no conflict between the constitutional amendment and the statute because R.C. 2919.25 does not create or recognize a "legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals." The statutes scope is vary narrow; it defines the conduct that constitutes the crime of domestic violence, and sets forth categories of individuals considered potential victims under the statute. Even if R.C. 2919.25 were construed to create or recognize a "legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals," the statute would still be constitutional because it does not approximate marriage. Specifically, this statute does not permit unmarried individuals to enter into a legally binding marriage-like relationship with each other, e.g., giving an individual the right to inherit from an intestate cohabitant, the right to make medical decisions on a cohabitants behalf, the right to file a joint tax return with a cohabitant, or any other of the host of rights associated with marriage. Further, the intent of the domestic violence statute is clear on its face to: protect all members of a household from domestic violence by punishing those who commit domestic violence. Consistent with that purpose, this statute protects other household members beyond spouses and cohabitants, such as parents, stepparents, and children. State v. Carswell, 2005-Ohio-6547 (12th Dist., Warren, 12/12/05).
Keywords: state constitution, discrimination, Issue 1, person living as a spouse, unwed, cohabitation, DOMA
Date: 6/5/2006
Extending DV Protections To Unmarried Cohabitants Violates Ohio Constitution (issue 1)
The "person living as a spouse" provision of the domestic violence criminal statute, R.C. 2919.25(F)(1)(a)(I.), violates the Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA) to the Ohio Constitution (Article XV, Section 11). A statute giving one effect of a de jure marriagethe protection afforded a spouse from domestic violence by the other spouseruns afoul of the constitutional amendment because under any more restrictive interpretation the evident purpose behind the second sentence of the amendmentto prohibit the indirect recognition of non-traditional marriagescould "die the death of a thousand cuts." State v. Ward, 2006-Ohio-1407 (2nd Dist., Greene, 3/24/06). The same two-judge majority in Ward has issued similar rulings in: State v. Dixon, 2006-Ohio-1584 (2nd Dist., Greene, 3/31/06); State v. Puckett, 2006-Ohio-1127 (2nd Dist., Greene, 3/10/06); State v. Phillips, 2006-Ohio-1607 (2nd Dist., Montgomery, 3/31/06); State v. McIntosh, 2006-Ohio-1815 (2nd Dist., Montgomery, 4/7/06); State v. Steineman, 2006-Ohio-1818 (2nd Dist., Greene, 4/7/06).
Keywords: state constitution, discrimination, unwed, cohabitation
Date: 6/5/2006
DV Conviction Is Affirmed In Face of Doma-based Constitutional Challenge
The court of appeals affirmed the defendants domestic violence conviction because the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing unconstitutionality based on the Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA) to the Ohio Constitution (Article XV, Section 11). First, the phrase "person living as a spouse" in R.C. 2919.25(F)(2) is merely "descriptive" of those individuals entitled to protection from criminal activity under the statute, and does not serve to create a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals such that approximates marriage. Second, the DOMA only seeks to preclude the creation and recognition of any relationship that would essentially infringe on the significance and effect of the institution of marriage itself. Finally, when construing a constitutional amendment, we presume that the enacting body was aware of existing constitutional and statutory provisions and their judicial construction. The drafters of the Marriage Amendment did not alter domestic violence law by the amendments language; nor is such a purpose evidenced by the intent surrounding its drafting. State v. Nixon, 2006-Ohio-72 (9th Dist., Summit, 1/11/06).
Keywords: state constitution, discrimination, Issue 1, person living as a spouse, unwed, cohabitation
Date: 6/5/2006
Ohios DV Statute Does Not Violate Ohios Marriage Amendment
The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas upheld the constitutionality of Ohios criminal domestic violence laws and their application to unmarried couples in the face of a challenge based on Ohios Defense of Marriage Amendment (Issue;1), Article;XV, Section;11 of the Ohio Constitution. The 2004 Marriage Amendment did not contain any express language repealing inconsistent statutes, suggesting its drafters did not contemplate that the new provision would invalidate existing statutes. Moreover, the Marriage Amendment did not override R.C.;2919.25 by implication, because when the Marriage Amendment and the statute are both given a reasonable construction they can both coexist. Further, when considering the origin and background of the Marriage Amendment, it is clear that the Amendment was narrowly focused and only intended to strengthen the legal definition of marriage by prohibiting civil unions or other relationships substantially equivalent to marriage. Finally, to the extent that the Marriage Amendment does more than merely define "marriage" and limit the power of the legislature to expand upon that definition of "marriage," it is not self-executing. State v. Rodgers, 131 Misc.2d 1 (Franklin C.P., 3/29/2005).
Keywords: homosexual, same sex couple
Date: 8/22/2005
DV Statute As Applied To Cohabitating Partners Is Constitutional
The defendant argued that he was erroneously convicted under the domestic violence statute because it treated him as if he were married, in violation of the Ohio Constitutions ban (Article;XV, Section;11) on any law that creates or recognizes "the design, qualities, effect, or significance of marriage." As an initial matter, the court of appeals noted that the state constitutional amendment was not in effect at the time of the commission of the alleged domestic violence offense and was, therefore, not applicable. But the court of appeals ruled (in what is probably dicta) that Ohios domestic violence law protecting unmarried individualsgay or straightwas not unconstitutional. The intent of the Defense of Marriage Amendment was to prohibit same sex marriage, and it has no application to criminal statutes in general or the domestic violence statute in particular. Moreover, if the proponents of the Marriage Amendment had intended to alter Ohios domestic violence law, they would have drafted the amendment accordingly. State v. Newell, Case No. 2004CA00264, 2005-Ohio-2848 (5th Dist., Stark, 5/31/2005).
Keywords: homosexual,same sex couple
Date: 8/22/2005
Court of Appeals Rejects Constitutional Vagueness Challenge To DV Statute
The Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals has held that Ohios criminal domestic violence statute is valid against a claim that it was unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to the criminal defendant. The defendant argued that the term "cohabitation" is unconstitutionally vague and that his assault on his live-in girlfriend should not have been characterized as domestic violence, as his live-in girlfriend did not fit within the definition of a "family or household member" or as someone with whom he "otherwise cohabitates" for purposes of the statute. However, the Court of Appeals found that the term "cohabiting" as used by the legislature in the domestic violence statute provides sufficient warning to offenders as to the types of relationships that are covered and that the term is not too vague to meet the requirements of due process under the Constitution. Cleveland v. Schill, No. 80111, 2002-Ohio-1263 (Cuyahoga 3/21/2002).
Keywords: constitutionality,constitutional,unconstitutional,cohabiting,cohabitation
Date: 8/1/2002
