Domestic violence and the law in Ohio

Desjardins puts a photograph of a kitchen on the screen. A chair lies on its side, a mobile phone is in pieces on the tile, and there is a fist-sized hole in the drywall beside the fridge. 'This is the Hollis kitchen on Willow Crescent, a little before midnight on Sunday, February 22, 2026,' he says. 'Before we talk about what the officers did, I want you to answer a simple question. If you were the officer standing here, what offenses might you be looking at?' The students call out answers: assault, mischief, threats. Brooks adds one more. 'And what about the forty minutes before anyone called? The police usually arrive at the end of something.'

Ohio has a specific domestic violence offense in Ohio Revised Code 2919.25, which applies when the victim is a family or household member, and a range of other offenses that often arise in the same incidents. Federal law adds offenses and firearms prohibitions that apply across the United States. This lesson sets out the main offenses, the special rules that apply when the victim is a partner, and the policies that govern charging.

The domestic violence offense

Ohio Revised Code 2919.25 prohibits three things. Under division (A), no person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member. Under division (B), no person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to a family or household member. Under division (C), no person shall, by threat of force, knowingly cause a family or household member to believe that the offender will cause imminent physical harm to them. Physical harm means any injury, illness or other physiological impairment, regardless of gravity or duration, so a push or a slap that causes pain is enough.

The penalty for domestic violence depends on the division and on the offender's record. A first offense under division (A) or (B) is a misdemeanor of the first degree, but a prior conviction for domestic violence or certain other offenses against a family or household member raises it to a felony, and further priors or the victim's pregnancy raise it again. A first offense under division (C) is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, also increasing with prior convictions. Because the degree depends on priors, a records check before charging is essential.

Ohio has a specific strangulation offense. Ohio Revised Code 2903.18, in effect since April 4, 2023, prohibits knowingly causing serious physical harm, or a substantial risk of it, by strangulation or suffocation, and knowingly causing or creating a substantial risk of physical harm in that way. Strangulation is defined as any act that impedes normal breathing or blood circulation by pressure on the throat or neck or by covering the nose and mouth. Every form of the offense is a felony. The lowest form is a felony of the fifth degree, raised to the fourth degree when the victim is a family or household member or a dating partner, and higher still for serious harm, a prior violent felony, or a victim the offender knew was pregnant.

Several offenses protect the victim's safety and the court process. Menacing by stalking, under 2903.211, prohibits engaging in a pattern of conduct, meaning two or more actions or incidents closely related in time, that knowingly causes another person to believe the offender will cause physical harm or mental distress. Telecommunications harassment under 2917.21 covers repeated calls and messages intended to abuse, threaten or harass. Ohio prosecutors often charge disrupting public services under 2909.04 when an abuser damages a phone to stop the victim calling for help. And violating a protection order, under 2919.27, is one of the most common charges, because abusers often make contact after a court has ordered them not to.

Special rules when the victim is a partner

Federal law adds protections that apply in every state. The Violence Against Women Act, first passed in 1994 and reauthorized several times, most recently in 2022, created federal offenses of interstate domestic violence, interstate stalking and interstate violation of a protection order, required states to give full faith and credit to each other's protection orders, and funds much of the victim service and training work that police rely on. Federal firearms law prohibits people subject to certain domestic violence protection orders from possessing firearms, under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), and prohibits people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing firearms, under 922(g)(9). In United States v. Rahimi (2024), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld 922(g)(8), holding that the Second Amendment permits temporarily disarming a person whom a court has found to be a credible threat to the physical safety of another.

Desjardins explains why these provisions exist. Intimate partner violence is repetitive, and the person most at risk is the same person each time. The offender knows where the victim lives, works and takes the children to school. Repeat offending is common, and violence often escalates. Ordinary rules that treat each offense on its own, and each accused as a first offender until convicted, do not fit that reality well. 'The law has slowly been catching up with what victims have known for a long time,' he says. 'Your job is to give the court the information it needs to apply these rules, and that means the history, the relationship and the risk need to be in your report.'

Firearms

Firearms are a central concern, because access to a firearm greatly increases the risk that intimate partner violence will become lethal. Ohio does not have an extreme risk protection order law, so the main tools are criminal and protection order law. Ohio courts may order a respondent or defendant not to possess weapons as part of a protection order or bond conditions, and federal law prohibits possession by people subject to qualifying protection orders and people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. In 2022, federal law was amended to extend the misdemeanor prohibition to convictions involving dating partners, with an opportunity for some first offenders to have their rights restored after five years. Officers should ask about firearms on every domestic violence call, check records, and document what they find so that prosecutors and judges can act on it.

In the Hollis case, Tyler Kerr held two hunting rifles and a handgun, kept in a safe in the basement. Megan told the officers about them when they asked. Officer Femi Okeke seized them that night with the consent of the homeowner, Megan, who co-owned the house, and the court later ordered Kerr not to possess weapons as a condition of his bond and of the protection order. Brooks tells the class that when Megan was asked weeks later what had helped most, she said it was knowing the guns were out of the house.

Charging policies and discretion

Ohio Revised Code 2935.03(B)(3) makes arrest the preferred course of action when an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that domestic violence or a protection order violation has occurred. If the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that more than one family or household member committed offenses against each other, the officer is to arrest the one the officer believes is the primary physical aggressor, considering any history of violence, whether either acted in self-defense, each person's fear of the other, and the comparative severity of injuries. Arrest remains discretionary, but an officer who does not arrest when it is the preferred course must state clear reasons in the written incident report required by 2935.032. In Ohio, as everywhere, the prosecutor, not the victim, decides whether a charge goes forward.

These policies are sometimes controversial. Some victims want the violence to stop but do not want their partner arrested, perhaps because they depend on the partner's income or fear the consequences of a charge. Research on mandatory and preferred arrest has been mixed: some studies found that arrest reduced repeat violence, and others found little effect or that the effect depended on the offender's circumstances. Critics argue that strict policies can lead to the arrest of victims who used force in self-defense, and that they can discourage some victims from calling. Supporters argue that the policies send a clear message that the violence is a crime, take the decision and the blame off the victim, and allow the system to intervene before the violence escalates. Brooks tells the class that the answer is not to abandon the policies but to apply them carefully: identify the person actually responsible, explain to the victim what will happen and why, and connect the victim with support. 'The worst outcome is a victim who calls, watches the wrong person get arrested, and never calls again.'

# Checking whether a records history changes the charge (illustrative rules only)
def charge_level(country, prior_ipv_convictions, strangulation):
    if country == "ca":
        base = "assault by choking (s. 267(c))" if strangulation else "assault (s. 266)"
        bail = "reverse onus at bail" if prior_ipv_convictions > 0 else "Crown onus at bail"
        return base + "; " + bail
    if strangulation:
        return "strangulation 2903.18, felony of the fourth degree (household member)"
    if prior_ipv_convictions == 0:
        return "domestic violence 2919.25(A), misdemeanor of the first degree"
    return "domestic violence 2919.25(A), raised to a felony by prior conviction"

for c in ("ca", "us"):
    for priors, strang in ((0, False), (1, False), (0, True)):
        print(c, priors, strang, "->", charge_level(c, priors, strang))

ca 0 False -> assault (s. 266); Crown onus at bail
ca 1 False -> assault (s. 266); reverse onus at bail
ca 0 True -> assault by choking (s. 267(c)); Crown onus at bail
us 0 False -> domestic violence 2919.25(A), misdemeanor of the first degree
us 1 False -> domestic violence 2919.25(A), raised to a felony by prior conviction
us 0 True -> strangulation 2903.18, felony of the fourth degree (household member)

The function is a simplification, but it makes a point that Kwan, the prosecutor from the last course, made to the class: 'The charge depends on facts the officer has to find. Was there strangulation? Is there a prior conviction? Is the victim a partner? If you do not ask, I do not know, and the court does not know.'

What happened in the Hollis case

Megan Hollis, thirty-one, is a dental hygienist. She and Tyler Kerr, thirty-five, who runs a small renovation business, had lived together for six years and have a daughter, Ava, who was six in February. Megan told Okeke that she had decided a month earlier to end the relationship and had told Tyler so on the Friday. On the Sunday night, after Ava was in bed, he took her phone from the counter and began reading her messages. When she tried to take it back, he threw it on the floor, pushed her against the wall and put his hands around her neck. She said she could not breathe or call out, and that she thought she was going to die. When he let go, he punched the wall beside her head. The neighbor downstairs, Doreen Pike, heard the crash and called 911.

Okeke and his partner, Officer Asha Malhotra, arrested Kerr at the house. He was charged with strangulation under 2903.18 as a felony of the fourth degree, domestic violence under 2919.25(A), and disrupting public services under 2909.04 for destroying the phone she would have used to call for help. A month later he was charged with violating a protection order under 2919.27 after he sent Megan messages from a new account, which Lesson 5 will cover. Desjardins asks why the strangulation detail made such a difference. Priya Sandhu answers: it raised the charge, it raised the risk assessment, and it meant the case was about the most dangerous thing he had done, not just the hole in the wall.