113703

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 6019

Syllabus

Protection order; abuse of discretion; mens rea; sufficiency of the evidence; cumulative error; Evid.R. 901; relevant evidence; mistake of fact; recklessness; plain error. Judgment reversed and case remanded for a new trial. In a case involving the violation of a protection order, the trial court erred when it did not allow the pro se appellant to introduce his divorce decree into evidence. The divorce decree was relevant to show that the appellant was disregarding the protection order because he believed the divorce decree terminated the protection order. Even though his belief was erroneous, the jury should have been able to decide whether appellant's honest belief was that the divorce decree terminated the protection order and, therefore, determine whether appellant was reckless for failing to realize the protection order survived the divorce decree. The trial court erred when it allowed the city to discuss appellant's prior conviction and other facts not in evidence. Although appellant's conviction occurred before the trial in this case, the offense for which he was convicted occurred after the offense in this case. The city cannot use a future bad act to show a person's state of mind for a prior offense. The court erred in allowing the city to argue that appellant had committed assault, when no evidence was put forth that appellant had ever been charged or convicted of the crime of assault. The trial also erred in allowing the city to argue that appellant had sent inappropriate text messages to the victim's coworker because the statement argued facts not in evidence and was highly prejudicial. Cumulative errors deprived appellant of a fair trial.