State v. Gardner

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 29, 2026
• Docket: C-250629
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Gardner, 2026-Ohio-2009.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250629 TRIAL NO. C/25/CRB/14310 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. :

ALISA GARDNER, : JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appellant. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 5/29/2026 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Gardner, 2026-Ohio-2009.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250629 TRIAL NO. C/25/CRB/14310 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : OPINION ALISA GARDNER, :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 29, 2026

Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Verjine V. Andanalian, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Joshua A. Thompson, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. [Cite as State v. Gardner, 2026-Ohio-2009.]

NESTOR, Judge.

{¶1} Alisa Gardner was in a relationship with David Watkins. After their

relationship ended, Watkins began seeing Terri Hammond. From that point on,

Gardner sent Hammond harassing messages. After years, Hammond filed for an ex

parte civil stalking protection order. A magistrate issued the requested order. Days

later, Hammond received messages from a fake Facebook account that she knew to be

Gardner’s. Hammond alerted the police and the State charged Gardner. After a bench

trial, the court found Gardner guilty of violating the protection order. Gardner

appealed.

{¶2} We hold that any evidentiary errors at the trial were harmless and that

Gardner’s conviction was consistent with the manifest weight of the evidence. We

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶3} Hammond filed for a protection order against Gardner in August of

2025. The trial court issued the order on August 11, 2025. Gardner received notice of

the protection order on August 12, 2025. On August 15, 2025, Hammond alerted

police that Gardner had contacted her on Facebook after the court order had been

issued. Gardner was charged with two counts of violating the protection order. The

matter proceeded to a bench trial.

{¶4} First to testify was a deputy in the Hamilton County Court Service

Division. He said he served Gardner with the protection order on August 12, 2025.

{¶5} Hammond testified next. She said that Gardner messaged her on

Facebook after the protection order was issued. Hammond stated that the Facebook

account was not under Gardner’s name, but Hammond knew it was Gardner.

{¶6} The Facebook account name was “Lisa Lee.” Hammond identified the OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

profile picture for Lisa Lee as Gardner. Hammond had blocked fake accounts made

by Gardner in the past, so she suspected it was Gardner. When messaging Lisa Lee

back, Hammond wrote, “Alisa.” The Lisa Lee account responded, “[T]hat’s my name.”

In other messages Hammond referenced the protection order and the Lisa Lee account

responded with knowledge of the order. Hammond also testified that Gardner has a

signature emoji. Hammond said that “the golf emoji is on everything that she writes.”

The golfer emoji is present in the messages Lisa Lee sent.

{¶7} Hammond ended her testimony by stating she received these messages

“at work, sometimes [] at home.” Her former place of work was in North College Hill.

Hammond was not positive if North College Hill is in Hamilton County, Ohio. To the

best of her knowledge, it is. Hammond also testified that her home is in Hamilton

County, Ohio, and she received messages there.

{¶8} The State introduced five exhibits in its direct examination of

Hammond. The defense initially objected to exhibit No. 5 stating the defense had not

received it. The court granted a brief recess for counsel to review exhibit No. 5. After

reviewing the document, the defense did not object to its inclusion.

{¶9} The State proffered exhibit No. 6 on redirect. Exhibit No. 6 consists of

more screenshots of Facebook messages from Lisa Lee, but it also included a date. The

defense objected arguing it never received exhibit No. 6. The court again granted a

brief recess for counsel to review the exhibit. After the recess, counsel renewed his

objection. The defense argued that the court should exclude the evidence because it

changed the defense strategy. The trial court overruled the objection because the State

proffered exhibit No. 6 to show the date Gardner sent the messages. The State did not

admit exhibit No. 6 into evidence.

{¶10} Hammond reviewed exhibit No. 6. While the exhibit was still in front

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

of her, she read the date of the picture. The State asked, “[W]hen was that photo

taken?” She responded, “August 15th, at 10:53 a.m.”

{¶11} Next to testify was Watkins. Watkins had a romantic relationship with

both Gardner and Hammond. He testified that a signature of Gardner’s messages is

“a golf man swinging emoji.” He also testified that he knows Gardner creates fake

Facebook accounts. He testified that Lisa Lee was one of those fake accounts.

{¶12} The State called Officer Nicole Peacock next. Officer Peacock testified

that she worked for the Cheviot Police Department. On August 15, 2025, “Hammond

came in to report that Alisa Gardner was continuing to contact her.”1

{¶13} The State rested its case, and the defense made a Crim.R. 29 motion.

The State dropped one of the charges against Gardner. The State kept the charge from

August 15. The court denied the motion and the defense called Gardner to testify.

{¶14} Gardner testified that she only has two Facebook accounts. The first is

under Alisa Gardner and the second is under Lee Wee. Gardner testified that the Lisa

Lee account is not hers and she does not know who runs it. Gardner also admitted

into evidence a post she made on her Alisa Gardner account. She posted “Like for real,

people are that thirsty to make false pages of me,”2 with a picture of a friend request

from the Lisa Lee account.

{¶15} The defense rested and renewed its Crim.R. 29 motion. The court

denied the motion and found Gardner guilty. Gardner received 180 days with 90

suspended, a $100 fine, and two years of community control. A month after her

sentencing, the trial court suspended the remaining days in jail and reduced

1 Hammond testified that Gardner sent her messages on August 18, 2025. This discrepancy can be explained by the State’s two charges against Gardner. While the State dropped the second charge, Hammond was consistent in her testimony that she received messages after August 12. 2 Gardner’s Facebook post includes the same golfer emoji.

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

community control to one year. Gardner asked the court to stay her sentence pending

appeal. The court denied her motion. Gardner now appeals bringing two assignments

of error.

II. Analysis

{¶16} In her first assignment of error, Gardner argues the court abused its

discretion in its choice of sanction for the purported Crim.R. 16 violation. In her

second assignment of error, she argues that her conviction is against the manifest

weight of the evidence that she violated the protection order, or that the offense

occurred in Hamilton County, Ohio.

A. First Assignment of Error

{¶17} “We review a trial court’s disposition of discovery issues for an abuse of

discretion.” State v. Garrett, 2026-Ohio-49, ¶ 47 (1st Dist.). An abuse of discretion

occurs when “a court exercis[es] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a

matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-

3304, ¶ 35. However, “courts lack the discretion to make errors of law.” Id. at ¶ 39.

{¶18} Discovery is governed by Crim.R. 16 and it is meant to provide evidence

“‘necessary for a full and fair adjudication of the facts, to protect the integrity of the

justice system and the rights of defendants, and to protect the well-being of witnesses,

victims, and society at large.’” State v. Branam, 2020-Ohio-3101, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.),

quoting Crim.R. 16(A). Under Crim.R. 16(L), if a violation occurs “the court may order

such party to permit the discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, or prohibit the

party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or it may make such

other order as it deems just under the circumstances.”

{¶19} When determining what the appropriate sanction is, the trial court

should determine “(1) whether the prosecution’s failure to disclose was a willful

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

violation of Criminal Rule 16, (2) whether foreknowledge of the evidence would have

benefitted the accused in preparation of his defense, and (3) whether the accused was

prejudiced by the evidence[.]” State v. Austin, 2021-Ohio-3608, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.), citing

State v. Darmond, 2013-Ohio-966, ¶ 35. If the trial court failed to properly cure a

discovery violation, then we next “‘consider whether any resulting error was

harmless.’” Id., quoting State v. Newell, 2019-Ohio-976, ¶ 42 (8th Dist.).

{¶20} In Austin, we held that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed

to consider the Darmond factors. Id. at ¶ 13-14. We held the same in State v. Hall,

2021-Ohio-3017, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.) (“Because [the trial court] imposed a sanction without

engaging in the sound reasoning process provided by Darmond, we find that the trial

court abused its discretion.”).

{¶21} When the State proffered exhibit No. 5, the defense initially objected.

The court granted a brief recess to review the document. The defense objected again

when the State proffered exhibit No. 6. Again, the court granted a recess for counsel

to review the document. Counsel then renewed his objection to exhibit No. 6 “to the

use of this evidence.” Counsel offered that the date provided in exhibit No. 6 changed

the trial strategy. The court overruled the objection because the State was only “using

it to establish a date.” The State did not enter exhibit No. 6 into evidence but the State

had the witness review it during her testimony. Though the trial court arguably

granted the recesses as sanctions, the trial court did not consider the factors of

Darmond on the record. Generally, when a court fails to address the Darmond factors

on the record, it is an abuse of discretion.

{¶22} However, any abuse of discretion here did not rise to the level of

reversible error. For the error to be reversible, Gardner would have to show (1) that

the error was so prejudicial it impacted the verdict, (2) the error was not harmless

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the remaining evidence did not establish her guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt. See Austin, 2021-Ohio-3608, at ¶ 14 (1st Dist.), citing

State v. Harris, 2015-Ohio-166, ¶ 37, citing State v. Morris, 2014-Ohio-5052, ¶ 25-33.

The trial court’s actions here do not rise to this level.

{¶23} Gardner argues exhibit No. 5 prejudiced her because it was the only

evidence offered by the State that showed the golfer emoji. Gardner did not preserve

her objection. Counsel initially objected under Crim.R. 16, but the court granted a

recess to allow defense counsel to review the exhibit. When the State entered exhibit

No. 5 into evidence, counsel did not object. The Court explicitly asked, “[A]ny

objection?” Counsel responded, “No, Your Honor.” Gardner waived all but plain error

on appeal. See State v. Price, 2015-Ohio-5043, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.). Gardner did not raise

a plain error argument in her brief and “we decline to sua sponte fashion a plain error

argument on [Gardner’s] behalf and then address it.” See id. at ¶ 9, citing State v.

McCrae, 2015-Ohio-1803, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.).

{¶24} Even if counsel had preserved the issue, the admission of exhibit No. 5

was harmless. The State used the golfer emoji in exhibit No. 5 to prove it was Gardner

sending the messages. While the State did offer its golfer emoji proof, it was not the

only evidence on identity. Hammond testified that the Lisa Lee profile picture is

Gardner. Additionally, the other exhibits show Hammond referring to Lisa Lee as

Gardner and Lisa Lee responding to Gardner’s name. The other messages show Lisa

Lee had a full understanding of the protection order Hammond had against Gardner.

This evidence offered by the State was enough to prove Gardner was the one messaging

Hammond.

{¶25} While Gardner waived all but plain error for exhibit No. 5, counsel did

preserve the objection to exhibit No. 6. Exhibit No. 6 was not introduced into

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

evidence; the State only proffered exhibit No. 6. Gardner argues that exhibit No. 6

prejudiced her because it proved the timing of the offense. Even if it had been

admitted, any error was harmless. Two witnesses testified that Gardner sent the

messages after she received the protection order on August 12.

{¶26} Hammond testified first. She stated she received messages on August

18, 2025, and on other days that she could not recall exactly. She knew she received

the messages after Gardner received the protection order. Officer Peacock also

testified to the date of the messages. Officer Peacock testified that Hammond came to

the Cheviot police station on August 15 to report the violations. Hammond showed

Officer Peacock messages she had received that day. Officer Peacock’s testimony

definitively established Gardner sent the messages after the order. Though

Hammond’s testimony was not specific to the August 15 date without exhibit No. 6,

R.C. 2919.27 does not require a specific date; all the State had to prove was that

Gardner sent the messages after August 12. The State did so through the testimony of

both Hammond and Officer Peacock.

{¶27} Here, “the trial court’s error had no impact on the verdict[.]” See Austin,

2021-Ohio-3608, at ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). Because any error was harmless, we overrule

Gardner’s first assignment of error.

B. Second Assignment of Error

{¶28} In her second assignment, Gardner argues that her conviction was

against the manifest weight of the evidence. The manifest weight of evidence standard

refers to whether there is a “greater amount of credible evidence . . . to support one

side of the issue rather than the other.” (Emphasis omitted.) State v. Thompkins, 78

Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). The court must look to and weigh the “evidence and all

reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine[] whether .

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

. . the [fact finder] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of

justice” to justify reversal. Id. This is an exceptional remedy that we reserve for cases

where the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. State v. Cook, 2024-Ohio-

4771, ¶ 27 (1st Dist.). We “must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the

finder of fact.” Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21.

1. Violating the Protection Order

{¶29} Gardner first addresses the protection order. R.C. 2919.27(A)(2)

provides, “No person shall recklessly violate the terms of any of the following: . . . [a]

protection order issued pursuant to section 2151.34, 2903.213, or 2903.214 of the

Revised Code[.]” Hammond’s protection order required Gardner to not contact

Hammond. Through the Lisa Lee account, Gardner did.

{¶30} The defense contends that Hammond did not have knowledge of

Gardner and could not identify her over text. However, Hammond testified that the

messaging had been going on for years. The messages came from several accounts,

including the account in Gardner’s name. In the exhibits offered at trial, the messages

showed Hammond calling Gardner by name and Gardner responding on the Lisa Lee

account. Hammond identified Lisa Lee’s picture as Gardner. The Lisa Lee account

admitted knowledge of the protective order Hammond repeatedly mentioned.

{¶31} Gardner also argues the State failed to prove the incident occurred after

the protection order was issued in her “Issue Presented for Review and Argument.”

But Gardner does not address this argument in her brief. Regardless, Hammond and

the officer that served Gardner the protection order both testified that Gardner

received the protection order on August 12, 2025. Hammond and Officer Peacock both

testified that Hammond received the messages after August 12. While Officer Peacock

and Hammond testified about different dates, the testimony was consistent that the

10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

offending messages came after the protection order was issued. Accordingly, the

court’s finding that Gardner violated the protection order after Gardner received the

order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

2. Venue

{¶32} Gardner next argues the State did not establish venue. “Under Article

I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution, a criminal defendant has the right to a trial in

‘the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.’” State v. Sullivan,

2014-Ohio-3112, ¶ 7 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St. 3d 475, 477 (1983).

{¶33} Here, Hammond testified that she received messages from Gardner at

her work and her home. While she was not positive that her workplace in North

College Hill was in Hamilton County, her home certainly was. She testified that her

home is in Cheviot and in Hamilton County, Ohio. She gave her address and provided

enough evidence for the court to conclude the State established venue. The State also

included Officer Peacock’s testimony that she worked for the Cheviot Police

Department, which Hammond testified was right near her house in Cheviot, Hamilton

County, Ohio. Accordingly, the venue finding was not against the manifest weight of

the evidence.

{¶34} We overrule Gardner’s second assignment of error.

III. Conclusion

{¶35} Having overruled both assignments of error, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

ZAYAS, P.J., and MOORE, J., concur.