Background
Alisa Gardner and David Watkins were formerly in a relationship. After their relationship ended, Watkins began seeing Terri Hammond. Gardner then subjected Hammond to years of harassing messages. In August 2025, Hammond obtained an ex parte civil stalking protection order against Gardner. Gardner received notice of the order on August 12, 2025.
Just three days later, on August 15, Hammond received messages from a Facebook account under the name “Lisa Lee.” Hammond recognized the profile picture as Gardner and alerted police, having previously identified and blocked multiple fake accounts created by Gardner. Gardner was charged with two counts of violating the protection order. At a bench trial, Hammond testified that she recognized the “Lisa Lee” account as Gardner’s based on the profile picture and her familiarity with Gardner’s pattern of creating fake accounts.
The Court’s Holding
The First District affirmed the conviction. On the evidentiary challenge, Gardner argued that the trial court improperly admitted testimony about prior harassment that occurred before the protection order was issued. The court held that even if the admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless because the trial court — as the finder of fact in a bench trial — was presumed to consider only relevant, admissible evidence. The critical evidence was Hammond’s testimony identifying Gardner as the person behind the “Lisa Lee” account and the messages sent after the protection order was in effect.
On the manifest-weight challenge, the court found that the trial court did not lose its way in crediting Hammond’s testimony that she recognized Gardner through the fake account. Hammond’s extensive history of receiving messages from Gardner through various fictitious accounts provided a reliable basis for her identification.
Key Takeaways
- A victim’s testimony identifying a defendant as the operator of a fake social media account can be sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for violating a protection order.
- In bench trials, the finder of fact is presumed to consider only relevant, admissible evidence, which may render certain evidentiary errors harmless.
- A pattern of creating fake social media accounts to contact a protected person can establish the defendant’s identity as the sender even without direct digital forensic evidence.
Why It Matters
This decision addresses the increasingly common scenario of protection-order violations through fake social media accounts. Ohio practitioners handling domestic violence and stalking cases should note that digital forensic evidence, while helpful, is not required to prove a violation; a victim’s testimony identifying the defendant through profile pictures and behavioral patterns can suffice. The opinion also reinforces the harmless-error standard applicable in bench trials, where the trier of fact is given greater benefit of the doubt regarding evidentiary considerations.