Invitations don’t defy protective orders, court says

COLUMBUS, Ohio — In a ruling declared precedent-setting by domestic violence lawyers, the Ohio Supreme Court said Wednesday that a woman who obtains a protective order against her ex-husband cannot be prosecuted for later inviting him to her home.

The justices unanimously threw out Betty Lucas’ conviction on charges of complicity to violate a protective order.

Lucas, 35, invited her ex-husband to a birthday party for one of her children even though she had a protective order against him for domestic violence. The two got into a fight at the party and both were charged.

In throwing out Lucas’ conviction, Justice Paul Pfeifer said the Legislature intended for only one party — the person against whom the protective order is issued — to be criminally responsible for violating such orders.

"An individual who is the protected subject of a temporary protection order may not be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the restrainee under the protection order," he wrote.

Joseph Lucas was also convicted of violating the order and was fined $100.

Prosecutors argued that Betty Lucas should be held as accountable as anyone else who helps someone violate a court order. Elena Tuhy, a Newark city prosecutor, said she was disappointed with Wednesday’s decision.

Betty Lucas’ attorney, Andrew Sanderson, argued that Ohio law is meant to protect victims of domestic violence even if they make a bad decision about the person who abused them.

The decision is the first such ruling from a state high court, according to domestic violence groups that sided with Lucas.

Michael Smallz, an attorney with the Ohio State Legal Services Association in Columbus, said courts in other states will probably look toward Ohio’s ruling for guidance.

"It’s such a landmark decision," Smallz said. "It’s one that will affect a lot of domestic violence victims across the nation."

In the only other similar case to reach a state high court, the Iowa Supreme Court took the opposite stance, finding in 1995 that the state law "makes no exception for victims who, regrettably, choose to ignore their own best interest."