[Cite as Dickson v. Miller, 2012-Ohio-2142.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BOBBI DICKSON : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
-vs- :
:
RICHARD MILLER : Case No. 11-CA-55
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Domestic Relations Division,
Case No. 11DR34
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 11, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
BOBBI DICKSON, PRO SE DENNIS P. EVANS
1620 Chelsea Place 501 South High Street
Lancaster, OH 43130 Columbus, OH 43215
Fairfield County, Case No. 11-CA-55 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Richard Miller, and appellee, Bobbi Dickson, had been involved
in a relationship which resulted in the birth of a child. On November 14, 2010, the
parties engaged in an argument while exchanging custody of the child. As a result of
the argument, appellant was arrested on a charge of domestic violence on November
18, 2010. On January 24, 2011, appellee filed a petition for a civil protection order
against appellant.
{¶2} A hearing was held on September 22, 2011. On September 26, 2011, the
trial court issued an order of protection in favor of appellee, effective until January 24,
2014.
{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
I
{¶4} "THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC
RELATIONS DIVISION ERRED IN GRANTING BOBBI DICKSON'S DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER. THE FACTS SUFFICIENTLY
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE APPELLEE DID NOT PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE
OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE RICHARD MILLER ATTEMPTED TO CAUSE OR
RECKLESSLY CAUSE PHYSICAL BODILY INJURY OR PLACE ANOTHER BY
THREAT OF FORCE IN FEAR OF IMMINENT SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM
PURSUANT TO R.C. § 3113.31."
Fairfield County, Case No. 11-CA-55 3
I
{¶5} Appellant claims the issuance of the civil protection order was against the
sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶6} R.C. 3113.31 governs protection orders. Subsection (A) states the
following in pertinent part:
{¶7} "(A) As used in this section:
{¶8} "(1) 'Domestic violence' means the occurrence of one or more of the
following acts against a family or household member:
{¶9} "(a) Attempting to cause or recklessly causing bodily injury;
{¶10} "(b) Placing another person by the threat of force in fear of imminent
serious physical harm or committing a violation of section 2903.211 or 2911.211 of the
Revised Code."
{¶11} "When granting a protection order, the trial court must find that petitioner
has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner or petitioner's family or
household members are in danger of domestic violence. R.C. 3113.31(D)." Felton v.
Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34, 1997-Ohio-302, paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶12} In the case sub judice, appellant argues there was insufficient evidence to
establish that he attempted to cause or recklessly caused bodily injury against a family
or household member or that he placed another person in fear of imminent serious
physical harm.
{¶13} In its order of protection filed September 26, 2011, the trial court stated the
following:
Fairfield County, Case No. 11-CA-55 4
{¶14} "The Court hereby makes the following findings of fact: The Court heard
the testimony of the parties and several Witnesses. The Court finds that the petitioner
was a victim of domestic violence on November 14, 2010 due to the Actions of the
Respondent. The Plaintiff suffered a black eye and an alleged concussion."
{¶15} Appellant specifically challenges the credibility of the witnesses. We note
the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are issues for
the trier of fact. State v. Jamison (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 182, certiorari denied (1990),
498 U.S. 881. The trier of fact "has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude,
and credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written
page." Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 1997-Ohio-260.
{¶16} The trial court found appellee was a victim of domestic violence, but did
not specify under which subsection of R.C. 3113.31(A). However, the trial court found
appellant assaulted appellee.
{¶17} Appellee testified appellant "immediately got into my face with a chest-
pump (sic) by stopping me" and pushed her up against a car. T. at 6, 24-25. Appellant
then went after appellant's husband. T. at 7, 25. Appellee kicked appellant in "the
private part" and appellant punched appellee "and I went flying, and my head hit the
concrete." T. at 7, 32. Appellee experienced a black eye, dizziness, and a concussion.
T. at 9-11; State's Exhibits D-1 – D-5. Before appellant left, he told appellee " 'This isn't
over.' He goes, 'If you go to the police, I'm going to go old school on you.' " T. at 40.
Appellee testified she was scared to be around appellant as she was afraid "of what
he's going to do next to me. I don't know. It's always - - it is always his way. There's
no changing his way. I cannot get around that." T. at 17-18.
Fairfield County, Case No. 11-CA-55 5
{¶18} Appellee testified when he first arrived, he stayed in front of appellee so
she couldn't get around him and appellee "just kind of bumped into me, nothing bad." T.
at 87. Appellee then "went nuts and started hitting me" so he shoved her back. T. at
87. After appellee kicked him in the private parts, appellant shoved her into the car to
"get her away from me." T. at 91. Appellant testified he "never struck her, period, just a
face shove twice." T. at 96-97.
{¶19} Appellee's husband, Richard Dickson, witnessed part of the incident and
testified appellant was the aggressor. T. at 52-53.
{¶20} As the trier of fact, the trial court was best equipped to determine which
version of the incident was more believeable and substantiated by the evidence. We
find appellee presented sufficient evidence to substantiate that appellant assaulted her
and an incident occurred under R.C. 3113.31(A).
{¶21} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in issuing the civil protection
order.
{¶22} The sole assignment of error is denied.
Fairfield County, Case No. 11-CA-55 6
{¶23} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, Ohio,
Domestic Relations Division is hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Edwards, J. concur.
s/ Sheila G. Farmer______________
s/ W. Scott Gwin ___________
_s/ Julie A. Edwards ____________
JUDGES
SGF/sg 424
[Cite as Dickson v. Miller, 2012-Ohio-2142.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BOBBI DICKSON :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
RICHARD MILLER :
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 11-CA-55
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, Ohio, Domestic Relations
Division is affirmed. Costs to appellant.
s/ Sheila G. Farmer______________
s/ W. Scott Gwin ___________
_s/ Julie A. Edwards ____________
JUDGES