State v. McGlothan
4 N.E.3d 1021, 138 Ohio St. 3d 146, 2014 Ohio 85 (2014)
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio's domestic violence statute, when a victim and offender share the same residence, cohabitation can be established by proving they lived together for a significant period, without necessarily requiring explicit evidence of shared familial or financial responsibilities and consortium, as previously articulated in cases where parties did not share a residence.
Facts:
- Jeffrey McGlothan was in a romantic relationship with Cynthia Robinson.
- McGlothan lived with Robinson in her apartment for approximately one year, sleeping there every night.
- McGlothan helped Robinson set up items in her apartment when he moved in.
- In January 2011, McGlothan and Robinson began arguing in her apartment after she confronted him about his whereabouts.
- During the argument, McGlothan pushed Robinson and grabbed her shirt, which detached her permanent tracheostomy tube, impairing her ability to breathe.
- McGlothan helped Robinson call 9-1-1 for medical assistance.
- Emergency-room physicians were able to reinsert Robinson's tracheostomy tube without surgery.
- Robinson informed medical staff that her boyfriend purposely pulled her trach out.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 2011, a grand jury indicted Jeffrey McGlothan on charges of felonious assault and domestic violence in a trial court.
- Following a bench trial in June 2011, the trial court found McGlothan not guilty of felonious assault but guilty of attempted felonious assault and domestic violence.
- The trial court sentenced McGlothan to an aggregate two-year prison term.
- McGlothan appealed his convictions to the Eighth District Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed McGlothan's conviction for attempted felonious assault but reversed his conviction for domestic violence, holding that the state failed to present sufficient evidence of cohabitation by not proving shared living expenses.
- The state of Ohio (appellant) appealed the appellate court's reversal of the domestic violence conviction to the Supreme Court of Ohio (appellee is McGlothan).
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 proving that an offender and victim shared the same residence for a significant period establish cohabitation for purposes of the domestic violence statute, or is additional evidence of shared familial/financial responsibilities and consortium always required?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Donnell, J.
Yes, proving that an offender and victim shared the same residence for a significant period can establish cohabitation for purposes of the domestic violence statute without always requiring additional evidence of shared familial/financial responsibilities and consortium. The appellate court misconstrued State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459, 683 N.E.2d 1126 (1997), by requiring evidence of shared living expenses in this case. Williams is distinguishable because it addressed circumstances where the victim and defendant did not share the same residence, thus necessitating proof of shared financial/familial responsibilities and consortium. However, when the state demonstrates that the defendant and victim are in a relationship and have lived together in the same residence for a significant period, such as McGlothan and Robinson living together for about a year, the state is not obligated to demonstrate those additional Williams factors. The General Assembly enacted the domestic violence statutes with the intent to broadly protect persons from violence by close family members or residents of the same household, recognizing that the offense arises out of the relationship rather than their exact living circumstances. Therefore, based on Robinson's testimony that McGlothan was her boyfriend and lived with her for about a year, the trial court could have reasonably determined that cohabitation was established.
Dissenting - Lanzinger, J.
No, the majority incorrectly finds cohabitation without requiring the Williams elements and should have remanded the case for consideration of allied offenses. The majority's decision effectively overrules a portion of State v. Williams by concluding that merely living in the same residence will satisfy the element of cohabitation without requiring the essential elements of (1) sharing familial or financial responsibilities and (2) consortium. Williams explicitly stated that both of these are essential elements, not merely factors, with specific examples like provisions for shelter/utilities and mutual affection/aid. The appellate court correctly held that the state had not met its burden to show proof of cohabitation due to insufficient evidence of shared living expenses. Furthermore, the case should be remanded to the court of appeals for resolution of McGlothan’s fifth assignment of error concerning allied offenses, which was previously deemed moot.
Dissenting - French, J.
No, the evidence presented did not sufficiently show that McGlothan shared in the familial or financial responsibilities of the household, even if shared living expenses aren't strictly required. While agreeing with the majority that requiring explicit proof of shared living expenses (like rent and utilities) is an incorrect interpretation of Williams, the first element of cohabitation from Williams still mandates proof that the offender and victim shared in familial or financial responsibilities. Robinson's testimony that McGlothan was her boyfriend and lived with her primarily supported the 'consortium' element (mutual affection, society, etc.), but it did not provide either direct or circumstantial proof that McGlothan shared in any of the familial or financial responsibilities of the household. Therefore, the domestic violence conviction should not be reinstated.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the definition of "cohabitation" under Ohio's domestic violence statute, especially in distinguishing its application based on whether the parties actually share a residence. By ruling that explicit proof of shared financial/familial responsibilities or consortium is not strictly necessary when a shared residence is established, the Ohio Supreme Court potentially streamlines the prosecution of domestic violence cases where the victim and offender live together. This interpretation reinforces the legislative intent to broadly protect individuals in intimate relationships residing in the same household, focusing on the factual living arrangement rather than intricate financial interdependencies. This decision broadens the statute's protective scope and may make it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions in such domestic violence scenarios, but it also creates a clearer two-tiered analysis for cohabitation, depending on whether a shared residence exists.
