As Passed by the Senate

130th General Assembly
Regular Session
2013-2014
Sub. S. B. No. 261


Senators Bacon, Manning 

Cosponsors: Senators Patton, Obhof, Seitz, Brown, Balderson, Beagle, Burke, Eklund, Hite, Hughes, Jones, LaRose, Oelslager, Sawyer, Tavares 

A BILL
To amend section 2919.27 of the Revised Code to 1
provide that service of a protection order or 2
consent agreement upon a person is not necessary 3
for the person to be convicted of the offense of 4
violating a protection order if the prosecution 5
proves that the person had actual notice of the 6
order or agreement and that the person recklessly 7
violated its terms.8


BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

       Section 1. That section 2919.27 of the Revised Code be 9
amended to read as follows:10

       Sec. 2919.27.  (A) No person shall recklessly violate the 11
terms of any of the following: 12

       (1) A protection order issued or consent agreement approved 13
pursuant to section 2919.26 or 3113.31 of the Revised Code; 14

       (2) A protection order issued pursuant to section 2151.34, 15
2903.213, or 2903.214 of the Revised Code; 16

       (3) A protection order issued by a court of another state.17

       (B)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of violating a 18
protection order. 19

       (2) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(3) or (4) of 20
this section, violating a protection order is a misdemeanor of the 21
first degree. 22

       (3) IfViolating a protection order is a felony of the fifth 23
degree if the offender previously has been convicted of, pleaded 24
guilty to, or been adjudicated a delinquent child for aany of the 25
following:26

       (a) A violation of a protection order or consent agreement27
issued pursuant to section 2151.34, 2903.213, or 2903.214, or 28
3113.31 of the Revised Code, two;29

       (b) Two or more violations of section 2903.21, 2903.211, 30
2903.22, or 2911.211 of the Revised Code, or any combination of 31
those offenses, that involved the same person who is the subject 32
of the protection order or consent agreement, or one;33

       (c) One or more violations of this section, violating a 34
protection order is a felony of the fifth degree. 35

       (4) If the offender violates a protection order or consent 36
agreement while committing a felony offense, violating a 37
protection order is a felony of the third degree. 38

       (5) If the protection order violated by the offender was an 39
order issued pursuant to section 2151.34 or 2903.214 of the 40
Revised Code that required electronic monitoring of the offender 41
pursuant to that section, the court may require in addition to any 42
other sentence imposed upon the offender that the offender be 43
electronically monitored for a period not exceeding five years by 44
a law enforcement agency designated by the court. If the court 45
requires under this division that the offender be electronically 46
monitored, unless the court determines that the offender is 47
indigent, the court shall order that the offender pay the costs of 48
the installation of the electronic monitoring device and the cost 49
of monitoring the electronic monitoring device. If the court 50
determines that the offender is indigent and subject to the 51
maximum amount allowable and the rules promulgated by the attorney 52
general under section 2903.214 of the Revised Code, the costs of 53
the installation of the electronic monitoring device and the cost 54
of monitoring the electronic monitoring device may be paid out of 55
funds from the reparations fund created pursuant to section 56
2743.191 of the Revised Code. The total amount paid from the 57
reparations fund created pursuant to section 2743.191 of the 58
Revised Code for electronic monitoring under this section and 59
sections 2151.34 and 2903.214 of the Revised Code shall not exceed 60
three hundred thousand dollars per year. 61

       (C) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division 62
(A)(3) of this section that the protection order issued by a court 63
of another state does not comply with the requirements specified 64
in 18 U.S.C. 2265(b) for a protection order that must be accorded 65
full faith and credit by a court of this state or that it is not 66
entitled to full faith and credit under 18 U.S.C. 2265(c). 67

       (D) If a person is charged with a violation of this section, 68
service of the protection order or consent agreement on the 69
defendant is not required to prove the violation if the 70
prosecution proves that the defendant had actual notice that there 71
was a protection order or consent agreement and proves that the 72
defendant recklessly violated the terms of the order or agreement.73

        (E) As used in this section, "protection order issued by a 74
court of another state" means an injunction or another order 75
issued by a criminal court of another state for the purpose of 76
preventing violent or threatening acts or harassment against, 77
contact or communication with, or physical proximity to another 78
person, including a temporary order, and means an injunction or 79
order of that nature issued by a civil court of another state, 80
including a temporary order and a final order issued in an 81
independent action or as a pendente lite order in a proceeding for 82
other relief, if the court issued it in response to a complaint, 83
petition, or motion filed by or on behalf of a person seeking 84
protection. "Protection order issued by a court of another state" 85
does not include an order for support or for custody of a child 86
issued pursuant to the divorce and child custody laws of another 87
state, except to the extent that the order for support or for 88
custody of a child is entitled to full faith and credit under the 89
laws of the United States. 90

       Section 2. That existing section 2919.27 of the Revised Code 91
is hereby repealed.92

       Section 3. The General Assembly declares its intent that the 93
amendments made by this act to division (D) of section 2919.27 of 94
the Revised Code are intended to supersede the holding of the Ohio 95
Supreme Court in State v. Smith (2013), 136 Ohio St.3d 1, so that 96
unperfected service of a protection order or consent agreement 97
does not preclude a prosecution for a violation of division (A) of 98
that section.99