Background
Sarah Gade and Brandon Smith share a daughter, Z.S., born in 2017. Their co-parenting relationship turned acrimonious in October 2022 when Gade began blocking Brandon’s court-ordered parenting time, prompting Brandon to file a contempt motion. On April 14, 2023 — the day Brandon was scheduled to pick up Z.S. — Gade sent texts attempting to cancel the visit and, when Brandon arrived with a police officer, shouted that he was a pedophile. Gade subsequently filed for a civil sexually oriented offense protection order and reported to the Department of Homeland Security that Brandon had abused children in multiple states while traveling for work.
The allegations triggered a significant law enforcement response: Montgomery County Children Services, local police, and DHS officers descended on Brandon and his wife Brittany’s home and removed Brittany’s four daughters pending forensic interviews. All electronic devices were seized and the home was searched. Every report was ultimately unsubstantiated, the protection order was voluntarily dismissed, and Brandon was awarded full custody of Z.S. During the summer of 2023, someone also enrolled Brandon in employment websites under names including “Chester the Molester” and “Pedophile.”
Investigators interviewed Gade on August 7, 2023, and recorded in their narrative that she admitted providing false information to the Internet Crimes Against Children task force and signing Brandon up for the harassing websites out of spite. Gade was charged with three counts each of making false statements, making false alarms, and obstructing official business, along with one count of telephone harassment. Before trial the court suppressed her admissions to police. At the October 2024 jury trial, however, a DHS agent testified that Gade had acknowledged knowing some of her statements to law enforcement were false — testimony that mirrored the suppressed admissions. The jury convicted Gade on six counts and acquitted her of telephone harassment; she was sentenced to suspended jail time plus 90 days on the obstruction counts and five years of community control.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed all convictions on both assignments of error. On the mistrial issue, the court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard and concluded that even setting aside the DHS agent’s inadmissible testimony, the remaining evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. The court therefore found no material prejudice to Gade and no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of a mistrial. The court noted that Gade herself declined a curative jury instruction, choosing instead not to draw further attention to the testimony.
On the sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges, the court held that circumstantial evidence of Gade’s culpable mental state was substantial and independent of the suppressed admissions. That evidence included: the close timing between the custody contempt motion and the sexual-abuse allegations; Brandon’s testimony about Gade’s conduct on April 14, 2023; Detective Weir’s finding of no corroborating evidence on any electronic device or in the home; guardian ad litem Jacob Kovach’s testimony that Z.S. appeared to have been coached and used words atypical for a seven-year-old; and video footage showing Gade prompting Z.S. about explicit terms and suggesting they were heard at Brandon’s house, which Z.S. denied.
The court concluded the jury did not lose its way. Inconsistencies between Gade’s statements to law enforcement and her social media posts, combined with the coaching evidence and the complete absence of corroborating physical or digital evidence, provided a rational basis for the jury to find that Gade knowingly made false accusations designed to create public alarm and obstruct official investigations.
Key Takeaways
- A mistrial is not required merely because inadmissible evidence reaches the jury; the defendant must show material prejudice — meaning the jury would not have convicted absent the improper testimony — and that showing failed here given the substantial independent evidence of guilt.
- A defendant’s “knowing” mental state for false-statement and false-alarm offenses may be proven entirely through circumstantial evidence, including the timing of allegations relative to adverse legal proceedings, coaching of child witnesses, and the complete absence of corroborating evidence after thorough investigation.
- Declining a curative jury instruction is a tactical choice that does not automatically entitle a defendant to a mistrial; the trial court’s offer of an instruction weighed against Gade’s prejudice argument on appeal.
- The guardian ad litem’s testimony about a child’s use of age-inappropriate language and apparent familiarity with investigation details can constitute significant circumstantial evidence of parental coaching in false-reporting prosecutions.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Ohio courts evaluate claims of good-faith belief in child-abuse allegations made during contentious custody disputes. Prosecutors can secure convictions for false reporting even when confessions are suppressed, provided the circumstantial record — investigation results, witness-coaching evidence, and the chronology of the parties’ legal conflicts — is strong enough to support an inference of knowing falsity. Defense counsel in similar cases should note that the court gave meaningful weight to the complete absence of any corroborating physical or digital evidence as proof that the reporting parent acted with knowledge of falsity, not merely negligently.
The case also serves as a caution on mistrial strategy: where inadmissible testimony mirrors other evidence already properly before the jury, appellate courts are unlikely to find the requisite material prejudice. Counsel facing a similar situation must carefully weigh whether to request a curative instruction — declining one, as Gade did, may foreclose a successful prejudice argument on appeal while leaving the jury without guidance to disregard the improper evidence.