In a significant ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld a domestic violence civil protection order against Cordero Spicer, affirming the decision made by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. The court's decision, announced on August 24, 2026, affects victims of domestic violence and reinforces the importance of their testimony in obtaining protection orders.
The case, known as Burgard v. Spicer (2025 CA 0108), centers around Emily Burgard, who filed for a civil protection order against Spicer after enduring years of domestic violence. Burgard's petition described a pattern of physical abuse and threats that culminated in her seeking legal protection.
Emily Burgard and Cordero Spicer had lived together since 2016, but their relationship took a violent turn. On May 8, 2025, Burgard filed a Petition for Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order (DVCPO) against Spicer. She claimed that he had physically assaulted her multiple times, including striking her with a belt, which left her with bruises and black eyes. Burgard testified that Spicer had threatened her with a gun and had controlled her movements, making it difficult for her to leave the home or seek help.
The dispute reached the Ohio Court of Appeals after Spicer appealed the November 13, 2025, judgment from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court had overruled Spicer's objections to the magistrate's decision, which had granted the DVCPO based on Burgard's testimony. Spicer argued that there was no corroborating evidence to support Burgard's claims and that the decision to grant the order was erroneous.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Kevin W. Popham, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court emphasized that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the DVCPO. The judges noted, "Burgard established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that domestic violence had occurred between Spicer and Burgard." The court found that Burgard's testimony was credible and sufficient to meet the legal standard required for a protection order.
The judges also addressed Spicer's claims regarding the lack of corroborating evidence. They pointed out that the Ohio Supreme Court has previously ruled that corroborating evidence is not necessary to establish domestic violence. The court stated, "Domestic violence is seldom committed in the presence of eyewitnesses. Moreover, in many cases medical evidence is absent. Often the only evidence of domestic violence is the testimony of the victim." This ruling reinforces the notion that a victim's testimony can stand alone in court.
This decision has significant implications for victims of domestic violence in Ohio. It underscores the importance of taking victims' accounts seriously and recognizing that their testimony can be sufficient to obtain legal protection. The ruling affirms that courts can rely on the victim's experience and fear when determining the need for a protection order.
Looking ahead, this ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving domestic violence protection orders in Ohio. It highlights the courts' willingness to uphold the rights of victims and ensure their safety, even in the absence of corroborating evidence. This could encourage more victims to come forward and seek help, knowing that their voices will be heard and taken seriously.
As for Spicer, he has the option to appeal this ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence how domestic violence cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the reliance on victim testimony.