Court Opinion

ID: 9962128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 19:10:15.789824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:52.970207
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Kronk v. Getts, 2024-Ohio-1516.]

                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                          TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                            MADISON COUNTY

 ASHLEY KRONK,                                     :

        Appellee,                                  :     CASE NO. CA2023-09-014

                                                   :           OPINION
     - vs -                                                     4/22/2024
                                                   :

 ASHLEY GETTS,                                     :

        Appellant.                                 :

        CIVIL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                           Case No. DRH20220125

Ashley Kronk, pro se.

Sabol Law Office, and Garry A. Sabol, for appellant.

        S. POWELL, P.J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Ashley Getts, appeals the decision of the Madison County Court

of Common Pleas granting a civil stalking protection order against her to appellee, Ashley

Kronk. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's decision.

        {¶ 2} On June 28, 2022, Kronk filed a petition for a civil stalking protection order

against Getts. To support her petition, Kronk alleged that she feared for her safety and
                                                                  Madison CA2023-09-014

the safety of her children because of the "extreme measures" that Getts had undergone

to harass her and her family both online and off. Nearly a year later, on May 17, 2023,

the matter came before a trial court magistrate for a full hearing. During this hearing, the

magistrate heard testimony from a total of three witnesses. This included testimony from

Kronk and Getts, both of whom appeared before the magistrate pro se.

       {¶ 3} As part of her testimony, Kronk testified that Getts had been harassing her

online via Facebook and Facebook Messenger for nearly two years. Kronk testified that

this included Getts making several fake Facebook profiles that she then used to make a

variety of posts on Facebook calling her a "mental case," "bum," "freeloader,"

"psychopath," and "unstable," as well as Getts accusing her of stealing money from her

son. Kronk testified that Getts had also been harassing her over the phone, as well as

through Instagram Messenger, and that Getts had contacted and thereafter disparaged

her to several of her friends, various members of her family, her two children's respective

fathers, and her pastor.

       {¶ 4} Kronk additionally testified that Getts would oftentimes drive by the house

in which she is staying, a drive that Kronk testified would take Getts over 30 minutes to

make one way, and that Getts would flip her off whenever they happened to cross paths

on the street. Following this testimony, Kronk thereafter testified, in pertinent part, the

following:

              In conclusion, there is clearly a pattern of harassment and
              defamation of my character by Ashley Getts toward me. Even
              though she has not physically threatened me, I feel
              threatened. If she is capable of going to the extreme
              measures to contact me, my friends, and my family, I am not
              sure what she is capable of. I need to do what's best for
              myself and my children to protect us.

This was in addition to Kronk testifying, "In order for me to get some relief from this

harassment, I honestly feel like it is not going to stop until something is further done."

                                              -2-
                                                                   Madison CA2023-09-014

       {¶ 5} On August 15, 2023, the magistrate issued a decision granting Kronk's

petition for a civil stalking protection order against Getts. In so doing, the magistrate

checked a box noting its decision finding Kronk had proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that Getts had knowingly engaged in a pattern of conduct that caused Kronk to

believe Getts would cause her physical harm or to suffer mental distress. Two weeks

later, on August 29, 2023, Getts filed an objection to the magistrate's decision. The trial

court summarily overruled Getts' objection to the magistrate's decision on September 6,

2023. Upon the trial court overruling Getts' objection, Getts filed a timely notice of appeal

challenging the trial court's decision to grant Kronk a civil stalking protection order against

her. Getts' appeal now properly before this court for decision, Getts has raised the

following single assignment of error for review.

       {¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE

EVIDENCE WHEN IT GRANTED THE CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER.

       {¶ 7} In her single assignment of error, Getts argues the trial court erred by

granting Kronk a civil stalking protection order against her. To support this claim, Getts

argues the trial court's decision granting Kronk a civil stalking protection order was not

supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

We disagree.

       {¶ 8} "R.C. 2903.214 governs both civil stalking and sexually oriented offense

protection orders." Tucker v. Uhl, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2023-05-052, 2023-Ohio-3680,

¶ 15. "The trial court must find that the elements of R.C. 2903.214(C)(1) were proven by

a preponderance of the evidence in order to grant the petitioner a civil stalking protection

order." Mather v. Hilfinger, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-12-083, 2021-Ohio-2812, ¶

16. "Preponderance of the evidence" means the greater weight of the evidence, or

evidence that leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more

                                               -3-
                                                                  Madison CA2023-09-014

probable than its nonexistence. McGrady v. Muench, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2018-12-

145, 2019-Ohio-2677, ¶ 12.       Therefore, "[w]hen assessing whether a civil stalking

protection order should have been issued, the reviewing court must determine whether

there was sufficient credible evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that

the petitioner was entitled to relief."   Fouch v. Pennington, 12th Dist. Clermont No.

CA2011-10-075, 2012-Ohio-3536, ¶ 9. This standard is, in essence, a review as to

whether the issuance of the civil stalking protection order was against the manifest weight

of the evidence. McBride v. McBride, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-03-061, 2012-Ohio-

2146, ¶ 10.

       {¶ 9} "The standard of review for a manifest weight challenge in a civil case is the

same as that applied to a criminal case." Dunn v. Clark, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2015-

06-055, 2016-Ohio-641, ¶ 8, citing Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-

2179, ¶ 17. A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence requires this court to

examine whether there exists a greater amount of credible evidence to support one side

of the issue rather than the other. Martinez v. Martinez, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2023-04-

038, 2023-Ohio-4783, ¶ 15. Therefore, when considering a manifest weight challenge,

this court "weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of

witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact

clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice warranting reversal and

a new trial ordered." Hacker v. House, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-11-230, 2015-Ohio-

4741, ¶ 21, citing Eastley at ¶ 20.

       {¶ 10} However, while this court must weigh the evidence and consider the

credibility of the witnesses, it is well established that a determination regarding the

witnesses' credibility is primarily for the trier of fact to decide. See State v. Lewis, 12th

Dist. Butler No. CA2019-07-128, 2020-Ohio-3762, ¶ 19 ("[w]hile a manifest weight of the

                                              -4-
                                                                    Madison CA2023-09-014

evidence review requires this court to evaluate credibility, the determination of witness

credibility is primarily for the trier of fact to decide"). To that end, because it is primarily

the trier of fact who decides the witnesses' credibility, "[a] judgment will not be reversed

as being against the manifest weight of the evidence where the judgment is supported by

some competent, credible evidence going to all essential elements of the case." Halcomb

v. Greenwood, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2018-03-008, CA2018-03-010, CA2018-03-

012, and CA2018-03-013, 2019-Ohio-194, ¶ 36. Accordingly, "reversing a judgment on

manifest weight grounds should only be done in exceptional circumstances, when the

evidence weighs heavily against the judgment." Jones v. Wall, 12th Dist. Warren No.

CA2015-10-088, 2016-Ohio-2780, ¶ 14.

       {¶ 11} Pursuant to R.C. 2903.214(C)(1), the issuance of a civil stalking protection

order "requires the petitioner to establish that the respondent engaged in conduct

constituting menacing by stalking." Harnar v. Becker, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-10-

068, 2021-Ohio-784, ¶ 6. R.C. 2903.211(A)(1) defines "menacing by stalking" to mean

engaging in a "pattern of conduct" that "knowingly" causes "another person to believe that

the offender will cause physical harm to the other person" or "mental distress to the other

person * * *." More specifically, R.C. 2903.221(A)(1) states:

              No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly
              cause another person to believe that the offender will cause
              physical harm to the other person or a family or household
              member of the other person or cause mental distress to the
              other person or a family or household member of the other
              person.

       {¶ 12} As can be seen, "[t]he plain language of the statute simply refers to conduct

that will affect 'the other person.'" Lane v. Brewster, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2011-08-

060, 2012-Ohio-1290, ¶ 20, citing R.C. 2903.211(A)(1). As a result, the language found

in R.C. 2903.22(A)(1) "does not require a court to determine the respondent's effect on

                                               -5-
                                                                   Madison CA2023-09-014

the 'reasonable' person, [but] only those specifically involved." Id. Therefore, when

determining whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a civil stalking protection

order against the respondent pursuant to R.C. 2903.214(C)(1), "the focus is on the

petitioner's fear, not that of an objective, reasonable person." Fortney v. Willhoite, 11th

Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-120, 2012-Ohio-3024, ¶ 43.

       {¶ 13} "A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware

that [his or her] conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain

nature." R.C. 2901.22(B). "A person has knowledge of circumstances when he [or she]

is aware that such circumstances probably exist." Id. "To establish a pattern of conduct,

there only needs to be two or more actions closely related in time." Fouch, 2012-Ohio-

3536 at ¶ 9, citing R.C. 2903.211(D)(1). In determining what constitutes a "pattern of

conduct," the trial court must take every action of the respondent into consideration even

if some of the actions, in isolation, may not seem that particularly threatening. Middletown

v. Jones, 167 Ohio App.3d 679, 2006-Ohio-3465, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.).

       {¶ 14} "[A] pattern of conduct need not be proven by events from two different

days." Hammond v. Sait, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 22 MA 0032, 2023-Ohio-893, ¶ 34. It

is therefore entirely possible that "a pattern of conduct can arise out of two or more events

which occur on the same day." Fouch, citing Shockey v. Shockey, 5th Dist. Delaware

No. 08CAE070043, 2008-Ohio-6797, ¶ 19. This holds true so long as there are sufficient

intervals of time between the events. Wilson v. Rowe, 5th Dist. Knox No. 15-CA-14, 2016-

Ohio-523, ¶ 28. "Explicit threats are not necessary to establish menacing by stalking

under R.C. 2903.211." Bartells v. Bertel, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-11-216, 2018-

Ohio-21, ¶ 56.

       {¶ 15} R.C. 2903.211(D)(2) defines "mental distress" to mean either: (1) any

mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity; or (2) any

                                               -6-
                                                                 Madison CA2023-09-014

mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment,

psychological treatment, or other mental health services, regardless of whether any

person requested or received psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other

mental health services. Wilson v. Wilson, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2023-01-009, 2023-

Ohio-4243, ¶ 24. Although constituting something more than mere mental stress or

annoyance, Swartz v. Van Deest, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2022 CA 00080, 2023-Ohio-1882,

¶ 25, "[m]ental distress need not be incapacitating or debilitating." Joy v. Letostak, 10th

Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-1040, 2015-Ohio-2667, ¶ 25. Expert testimony is also "not

required to demonstrate that a petitioner has suffered from mental distress." Coleman v.

Razete, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180232, 2019-Ohio-2106, ¶ 24, citing Smith v. Hein, 1st

Dist. Hamilton No. C-140529, 2015-Ohio-2749, ¶ 9.

      {¶ 16} It is instead the "duty of the trier of fact to determine whether a victim

suffered mental distress as a result of the offender's actions." Fouch, 2012-Ohio-3536 at

¶ 13, citing Jones, 2006-Ohio-3465 at ¶ 7. "In making this determination, the trial court

'may rely on its knowledge and experience in determining whether mental distress has

been caused.'" Mather, 2021-Ohio-2812 at ¶ 23, quoting Smith v. Wunsch, 162 Ohio

App.3d 21, 2005-Ohio-3498, ¶ 18 (4th Dist.). Therefore, "while mental distress need not

be shown to any level of professional certainty," mental distress must nevertheless "be

proven by facts introduced at trial and the reasonable inferences springing from those

facts." Cleveland Hts. v. Lewis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79511, 2002-Ohio-2736, ¶ 22.

      {¶ 17} In this case, and as noted above, Getts argues the trial court's decision to

grant Kronk a civil stalking protection order against her was not supported by sufficient

evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.           This is because,

according to Getts, the record is devoid of any evidence to prove she engaged in a pattern

of conduct that either knowingly caused Kronk to believe that she would cause her

                                             -7-
                                                                  Madison CA2023-09-014

physical harm or to suffer mental distress. However, given the trial court's decision in this

case, it is clear that the trial court found Kronk's testimony that she felt "threatened" by

Getts' harassment over the preceding two years sufficient to prove by a preponderance

of the evidence that Getts had either knowingly caused Kronk to believe that she would

cause her physical harm or to suffer mental distress. The same is true as it relates to

Kronk's testimony wherein Kronk testified that she was "not sure" what Getts was

"capable of," thereby making it necessary for Kronk "to do what's best" to "protect" both

herself and her children from Getts given the "extreme measures" that Getts had gone to

contact her, her friends, her family, and even her pastor. We find no error in the trial

court's decision.

       {¶ 18} Therefore, given the record properly before this court, and while it certainly

would have been helpful for this court's review had the trial court magistrate done

something more than simply check a box setting forth its findings, the record nevertheless

supports the trial court's decision to grant Kronk a civil stalking protection order against

Getts in this case. See, e.g., Cutler v. Reed, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-105, 2016-

Ohio-1151, ¶ 29-31 (affirming trial court's grant of a civil stalking protection order where

petitioner had been subjected to respondent's "ongoing and repeated harassment" both

online and off for a period of several months).       Getts' claim otherwise lacks merit.

Accordingly, because the trial court's decision to grant Kronk a civil stalking protection

order against Getts was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the

manifest weight of the evidence, Getts' single assignment of error lacks merit and is

overruled.

       {¶ 19} Judgment affirmed.

       PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.

                                              -8-