Background
After a 911 caller reported a man assaulting a partially unclothed woman, sheriff’s deputies found M.M. tearful, topless, and visibly injured. M.M. initially told deputies that Shawn Anthony Franklin had punched and smacked her, torn off her shirt, and strangled her. She also said they had lived together at Franklin’s mother’s home for several months and had stayed at a motel after his mother made him leave.
At trial, M.M. changed her account, testifying that she and Franklin had never lived together, although they sometimes stayed together and she sometimes stayed at his house. A jury convicted Franklin of third-degree-felony domestic violence but acquitted him of strangulation. The trial court sentenced him to 36 months in prison, and Franklin challenged the evidence, jury instructions, and prosecutor’s closing argument on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that M.M. was a family or household member and that the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Under Ohio Supreme Court precedent, when the victim and offender lived together, the State need not separately prove both shared familial or financial responsibilities and consortium. The relationship evidence, motel stay, M.M.’s testimony that she sometimes stayed at Franklin’s house, and her initial statements that they had lived together permitted the jury to find cohabitation and resolve her conflicting accounts against Franklin.
The court agreed that the trial court misstated the law by defining cohabitation using “or” between shared responsibilities and consortium. But Franklin had expressly approved the instructions, inviting the error, and the error was harmless because proof that the couple lived together made separate proof of those factors unnecessary. The court also found no plain error from the absence of a second limiting instruction concerning Franklin’s prior domestic-violence convictions and no reversible prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument.
Key Takeaways
- When an alleged victim and offender share a residence, Ohio law does not require separate proof of shared familial or financial responsibilities and consortium to establish cohabitation.
- A defendant who affirmatively approves jury instructions generally cannot challenge those instructions on appeal under the invited-error doctrine.
- The missing additional limiting instruction and challenged closing remarks did not satisfy plain-error review, particularly given the evidence and the jury’s acquittal on the strangulation charge.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies how Ohio courts apply the statutory “family or household member” requirement when the evidence about a couple’s living arrangements conflicts. It also underscores the appellate consequences of approving jury instructions and failing to object to limiting instructions or closing arguments at trial.