State v. Cobb
2003 Ohio 3821, 153 Ohio App. 3d 541, 795 N.E.2d 73 (2003)
Rule of Law:
For a domestic violence conviction under R.C. 2919.25, "cohabitation" requires demonstrable sharing of familial or financial responsibilities and consortium, beyond mere frequent cohabitation; a defendant cannot claim self-defense if they were at fault in creating the violent situation; and a temporary protection order is valid and enforceable at the time of its violation, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the underlying charge that led to its issuance.
Facts:
- James E. Cobb and Bonita Likely were in a dating relationship for 15 months.
- During the last nine months of their relationship, Cobb frequently stayed overnight at Likely's apartment, had a key, and they had sexual relations, but he never moved his belongings in and maintained his own apartment.
- Cobb occasionally provided Likely with money for rent, telephone bills, groceries, and car license plates.
- Bonita Likely was married to someone else during her relationship with James E. Cobb.
- Likely informed Cobb that she wished to terminate their relationship, after which Cobb demanded the return of groceries and perfume he had purchased for her.
- Cobb pushed his way into Likely's apartment, physically assaulted her by throwing her onto a couch, then to the floor, and against a door, and shook her for two or three minutes.
- As a result of the altercation, Likely sustained two bumps on her head and scratches and bruises on her legs.
- Cobb claimed he acted in self-defense, alleging Likely threw a perfume bottle at him and ran at him, and he feared injury due to a blood-clotting disease.
Procedural Posture:
- James E. Cobb was tried and convicted of domestic violence in a trial court.
- The trial court also found Cobb guilty of violating a protection order after he pleaded no contest to that charge.
- Cobb filed a Crim.R. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal after the state’s case-in-chief regarding the domestic violence charge, which the trial court denied.
- Cobb appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, raising five assignments of error challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence for his convictions and the denial of his self-defense claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a relationship involving frequent overnight stays and sporadic financial contributions, but lacking shared familial or financial responsibilities and a common permanent residence, constitute "cohabitation" for the purpose of a domestic violence conviction under R.C. 2919.25, and can a defendant assert self-defense if they initiated the confrontation? Is a conviction for violating a temporary protection order valid even if the underlying domestic violence charge is later found to lack sufficient evidence of cohabitation?
Opinions:
Majority - Painter, Judge
No, the evidence presented by the state did not establish cohabitation, thus not supporting a domestic violence conviction, and Cobb could not claim self-defense, but the conviction for violating the protection order was valid. Regarding cohabitation, the court applied the State v. Williams test, which requires (1) sharing of familial or financial responsibilities and (2) consortium. The court found that while there was evidence of consortium (conjugal relations) and sporadic financial contributions, this was insufficient to demonstrate shared familial or financial responsibilities. Cobb maintained his own apartment and did not move his belongings into Likely's, indicating a lack of a common permanent household. Therefore, a reasonable mind could not find cohabitation proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Concerning self-defense, the court determined that Cobb was at fault in creating the situation that led to the physical altercation because he pushed his way into Likely's apartment. A person who initiates a confrontation cannot subsequently claim self-defense. As for the protection order, the court held that Cobb's conviction for violating the temporary protection order was valid. The order was legally issued and effective at the time of the violation, irrespective of the later finding that the underlying domestic violence charge lacked sufficient evidence of cohabitation. The subsequent failure to prove the domestic violence case did not negate the fact that Cobb violated a valid court order. While the evidence was insufficient for domestic violence, it supported the lesser-included offense of disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(1), given Cobb's reckless behavior causing inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the elements of "cohabitation" required for domestic violence prosecutions in Ohio, emphasizing that shared familial or financial responsibilities must be substantial, not merely sporadic. It reinforces that a physical relationship and frequent overnight stays alone are insufficient. The decision also firmly establishes that temporary protection orders are immediately enforceable and their validity at the time of violation is not undermined by later procedural or evidentiary shortcomings in the underlying charge. This provides important guidance for prosecuting domestic violence cases and ensures the integrity of protective orders, even in complex relationship dynamics.
