## Facts

- Michael Carswell was indicted for domestic violence under Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.25(A) for knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm to a “family or household member.”
- The alleged victim lived with Carswell in a romantic relationship, but they were not married.
- The prosecution sought to treat the victim as a “family or household member” because she was a “person living as a spouse” under Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.25(F).
- Carswell argued that applying the statute to unmarried cohabitants violated Article XV, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution (Defense of Marriage Amendment), which forbids the state from creating or recognizing a legal status for unmarried relationships intended to approximate marriage.
- The trial court dismissed the indictment as unconstitutional; the court of appeals reversed; Carswell sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.25 is unconstitutional under Article XV, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution insofar as it includes a “person living as a spouse” within “family or household member.”
2. Whether defining protected victims by unmarried cohabitation creates or recognizes a legal status approximating marriage, as prohibited by the constitutional amendment.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and held Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.25 constitutional.
- The Court ruled that “person living as a spouse” is a statutory classification identifying a category of victims for domestic-violence protection, not a state-recognized legal status comparable to marriage.
- The indictment could proceed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes are presumed constitutional, and the challenger bears the burden to show a clear conflict with the state constitution.
- Article XV, Section 11 prohibits creating or recognizing a legal status for unmarried relationships intended to approximate marriage; it does not bar the legislature from using relationship facts as classifications or from extending targeted protections to persons in nonmarital relationships.
- A statutory definition that identifies persons exposed to a heightened risk of domestic violence does not create a marriage-like legal relationship when it does not confer broad marital rights or duties (e.g., support obligations, property rights, inheritance rights).
- Criminal laws may define offense elements by reference to the offender-victim relationship without altering the underlying legal status of that relationship.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that extending domestic-violence protections to a “person living as a spouse” does not recognize a marriage-like legal status barred by the Ohio Constitution; it is a permissible classification aimed at preventing violence within household and intimate relationships.


State v. Carswell, 114 Ohio St. 3d 210, 871 N.E.2d 547 (Ohio 2007)