The Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled that Jessica A. Kaman cannot be prosecuted for violating a protection order, affirming the lower court's dismissal of the case against her. This decision impacts how protection orders are enforced in Ohio, particularly regarding the immunity of protected individuals. The ruling comes after a complicated case involving Kaman's husband, who faced serious charges including rape and child endangerment.
The case, State v. Kaman (docket number 2-26-01), began when Kaman reported her husband, Charles Kaman III, to authorities on June 1, 2025. He was intoxicated and allegedly suicidal, prompting a police investigation. Following the incident, the Auglaize Municipal Court issued a criminal protection order (CRPO) on June 4, 2025, to protect Kaman and their three minor children. The order prohibited Charles from contacting any protected persons, including Kaman and the children.
Despite the order, Charles made 34 phone calls to Kaman from jail between June 19 and June 23, 2025. During one call, he instructed Kaman to put him on speakerphone, allowing him to speak to their children. This led to Kaman being charged on July 10, 2025, with complicity to violating the protection order, a first-degree misdemeanor. Kaman pleaded not guilty and later filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming immunity under a previous court ruling.
The trial court granted Kaman's motion to dismiss on January 26, 2026, stating that her actions constituted a misuse of the protection order but acknowledging that Kaman was immune from prosecution based on the precedent set in State v. Lucas. The State of Ohio appealed this decision, arguing that Kaman should not be immune because she facilitated contact between Charles and their children.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge William R. Zimmerman, upheld the trial court's decision. The court emphasized that the law protects individuals under a protection order from prosecution for aiding the restrained party in violating the order. The court stated, "Protection orders are designed to regulate the behavior of the respondent, not the petitioner." This means that Kaman's immunity remains intact, regardless of her actions during the phone calls.
The court ruled that the presence of other protected parties does not shift criminal liability to a co-protected person. It reinforced that the responsibility for complying with the protection order lies solely with the restrained individual, in this case, Charles Kaman. The State's argument for a new exception to the immunity rule was rejected, as the court maintained that the statutory framework is clear and does not allow for such exceptions.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving protection orders in Ohio. It clarifies that individuals who are protected by these orders cannot be prosecuted for actions that may appear to violate the order, as long as they are acting within the bounds of the law. This decision may encourage more individuals to seek protection orders without fear of legal repercussions for their actions.
Looking ahead, the State of Ohio could potentially appeal this decision to a higher court, but details on any such plans were not available in the court filing. As it stands, the ruling sets a precedent that reinforces the protections afforded to individuals under protection orders, ensuring that the focus remains on the behavior of the restrained party.