Background
Emily Burgard petitioned for a domestic-violence civil protection order against Cordero Spicer under Ohio Revised Code Section 3113.31. Burgard testified that the two had lived together since 2016 and that Spicer repeatedly assaulted her, including striking her at least 20 times with a belt, causing bruises and black eyes. She also testified that he struck and threatened her with a gun, controlled her ability to leave or visit family, and threatened to kill her if she reported him to police.
Spicer denied assaulting Burgard and attributed her bruises to falls while intoxicated. The magistrate found Burgard credible and Spicer not credible, determined that Burgard had proved domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence, and issued a protection order effective through August 18, 2030. The trial court overruled Spicer’s objections, and he appealed, arguing that the order lacked corroborating evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that competent, credible evidence supported the finding that Burgard was in danger of domestic violence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by crediting her testimony. The appellate court declined to substitute its judgment for the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ demeanor and credibility.
The court also rejected Spicer’s contention that Burgard needed additional witnesses, police reports, medical evidence, or exhibits. Ohio law does not require corroboration to establish domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence, and a victim’s testimony alone may satisfy that standard. Burgard’s account of the assaults, threats, coercive control, and resulting fear was therefore sufficient to support the order.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner’s credible testimony alone can establish entitlement to a domestic-violence civil protection order under Ohio law.
- Corroborating witnesses, police reports, medical records, and physical exhibits are not required to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
- Appellate courts generally defer to the trial court’s witness-credibility findings when competent, credible evidence supports the judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that domestic violence frequently occurs without eyewitnesses or medical documentation and that the absence of corroborating evidence does not defeat an otherwise credible claim. For practitioners, the ruling highlights the importance of detailed testimony addressing the alleged violence, threats, coercive conduct, fear of future harm, and reasons a victim may not have promptly contacted law enforcement.