Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

Father’s Conviction for Disrupting School Activity Overturned

In the case of State v. Gonzales. 2022-Ohio-2433, the appellate court reversed a conviction for disrupting school activity due to the conviction being against the weight of the evidence where a father was asked to leave his daughters’ school and was accused of becoming angry and upset but video evidence showed no disturbance was caused.

Here, a father was charged and convicted of disrupting school activity after walking his daughters to the cafeteria before school, being asked to leave by the school counselor in compliance with a new school policy, and becoming angry and upset, cursing, and refusing to immediate leave. The father argued his conviction was based on insufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court agreed with the father.

In support of its decision, the appellate court explained that the school policy must only be applied to willful acts that actually cause a substantial disruption, disturbance, or interference with school activity. The appellate court further explained that the witness testimony of the school counselor and cafeteria worker standing alone was enough to uphold the conviction, even if the surveillance camera did not capture a disturbance. The appellate court then held that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the objective video evidence directly contradicted the school employees’ testimony. The video showed that no disturbance was created, as evidenced by the lack of reactions from the children and employees around the father. Thus, the appellate court found that the evidence weighed heavily against a conviction for disrupting school activity.

To read this case, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.