Here, P.H. testified that she and Mr. Branch were in a romantic relationship for at least one year and lived together on and off for approximately six months in the same boarding-house room. This testimony alone was sufficient to establish cohabitation.

State v. Branch

2026 – Ohio – 664

Fifth District Appellate Court

Stark County, Ohio

February 26, 2026

Why is this case important?

State v. Branch is important because it reinforces that an “on-again, off-again” relationship can still qualify as a domestic violence relationship under O.R.C. §2919.25 when the parties have cohabited – even intermittently – within the past five years. The court made clear that a victim’s testimony establishing a romantic relationship and shared residence over time is sufficient to prove cohabitation, without requiring independent proof of shared financial responsibilities.

The case also reflects a continued shift by Ohio appellate courts away from the strict two-part cohabitation test outlined in State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459  (1997), effectively allowing proof of consortium and shared living arrangements – standing alone – to satisfy the “family or household member” element. For law enforcement, this lowers the practical burden of proving a domestic relationship and emphasizes the importance of documenting the nature and duration of the relationship in detail.

Some domestic relationships are just like a WIFI connection with low bandwith – on again and off again. The relationship between Mr. Branch and his girlfriend were on and off.  This can be challenging for law enforcement to determine if the relationship comports with Ohio Domestic Violence law.

Background

On December 20, 2024, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Eric Branch on one count of attempted murder, a first-degree felony in violation of O.R.C. §2923.02 and §2903.02(B)/(D); one count of kidnapping, a first-degree felony in violation of O.R.C. §2905.01(B)(2)/(C)(1); two counts of felonious assault, second-degree felonies in violation of O.R.C. §2903.11(A)(2)/(D)(1)(a); one count of domestic violence, a third-degree felony in violation of O.R.C. §2919.25(A)/(D)(4); and one count of abduction, a third-degree felony in violation of O.R.C. §2905.02(A)(2)/(C).

Acquitted on Attempted Murder and Felonious Assault – Guilty on DV

On March 4, 2025, Mr. Branch executed a written waiver of jury trial as to the domestic violence charge only. The State dismissed the kidnapping and abduction counts. Following trial, the jury acquitted Mr. Branch of attempted murder and both felonious assault charges. The trial court found Mr. Branch guilty of domestic violence.

The Victim’s Testimony

Intermittently Resided Together

P.H. testified that she and Mr. Branch were in a romantic relationship for approximately one year and lived together intermittently for about six months in a single room of a boarding house in Canton, Ohio. She described multiple assaults by Mr. Branch occurring between early November and early December 2024.

First Violent Incident

[G]rabbed P.H. by the throat, slammed her head into a garage door, then lifted her and slammed her head down onto the concrete floor.

The first incident occurred in early November 2024. After becoming angry, Mr. Branch grabbed P.H. by the throat, slammed her head into a garage door, then lifted her and slammed her head down onto the concrete floor. Although bleeding, P.H. did not seek medical attention or contact police. P.H. testified that she remained with Mr. Branch. 1T. at 120-122.

Second Violent Incident

Mr. Branch struck the back of her head with a thick wooden board and threatened to kill her if she repeated certain statements.

A second incident occurred in mid-November at their residence. While P.H. lay on her side, Mr. Branch struck the back of her head with a thick wooden board and threatened to kill her if she repeated certain statements. P.H. testified she was stunned and saw “stars.” Afterward, Mr. Branch forced P.H. to leave the residence, fearing police involvement. Approximately twenty minutes later, during an argument outside, Mr. Branch struck P.H. in the face with the blunt end of a screwdriver and scratched her leg with the tool. P.H. testified that when she attempted to leave, Mr. Branch chased her and took her shoes. She fled to her friend J.M.’s home, where she stayed for several days before returning to Mr. Branch.

Third Violent Incident

Mr. Branch punched P.H. in the face or chin

A third incident occurred in late November or early December. Mr. Branch punched P.H. in the face or chin and told her he had been “holding that one in for two days.” Shortly thereafter, P.H. testified that she left and went to stay with J.M

[M]edically induced coma and underwent emergency surgery for a brain bleed that caused significant swelling and vision impairment.

P.H. testified that she arrived at J.M.’s home on December 1, 2024. For the first day or two P.H. appeared normal but then became increasingly fatigued. She recalled leaving with a friend to go to a store several days later and then waking up in the hospital. P.H. testified that hospital staff informed her she had been placed in a medically induced coma and underwent emergency surgery for a brain bleed that caused significant swelling and vision impairment. P.H. testified she continues to suffer pain and scarring..

Testimony of J.M.

J.M. testified that she lived near the boarding house and knew both P.H. and Mr. Branch from the neighborhood. She confirmed that P.H. came to her home on December 1, 2024, at 5:02 p.m., followed by Mr. Branch one minute later. Ring doorbell footage of both P.H. and Mr. Branch’s arrivals at J.M.’s home was admitted into evidence.

P.H. stayed with J.M. for several days. J.M. testified that during the first two days, P.H. seemed normal, but her condition deteriorated over the next several days. J.M. testified that by December 9, 2024, P.H. was unable to walk steadily, could not speak clearly, and exhibited abnormal eye movement. Although there were no visible external injuries, J.M. and a male friend, J.W. – who also lived with J.M., took P.H. to the hospital. J.M. dropped both J.W. and the victim off at the hospital and then returned home.

Law Enforcement and Medical Testimony

Detective Phillip Johnson testified that he responded to Mercy Hospital on December 9, 2024, after staff reported a domestic violence victim. Hospital personnel indicated to Detective Johnson that P.H. had been assaulted by her boyfriend with a screwdriver. Johnson testified that he traced a vehicle license plate to J.M., obtained Ring footage, and interviewed witnesses.

Forensic nurse Susan Baldwin, R.N., testified that she evaluated P.H. in the Intensive Care Unit (“ICU”) on December 11, 2024. 1T. at 207-208. She identified medical records and photographs showing swelling caused by brain trauma. Nurse Baldwin testified that P.H. reported being struck in the head with a wooden object by Mr. Branch and stated she knew immediately something was wrong. Nurse Baldwin testified that P.H. recalled little after the assault until waking in the ICU.

Guilty – Thirty-Six Months in Prison

Mr. Branch did not testify or present evidence. As relevant to this appeal, the trial court found Mr. Branch guilty of domestic violence and imposed a 36-month prison sentence

Appeal – Mr. Branch and Victim were Not Family or Household Members

In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Branch contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction for domestic violence. Specifically, he argues the State failed to prove that he and P.H. were “family or household members,” an essential element of the offense. We disagree.

Domestic Violence – O.R.C. §2919.25

To sustain a conviction for domestic violence, the State was required to prove that Mr. Branch and the victim were “family or household members.” O.R.C. §2919.25(A). As relevant here, that term includes a “person living as a spouse,” defined as one who is cohabiting or has cohabited with the offender within five years of the offense. O.R.C. §2919.25(F)(1)(a), (F)(2).

What is Cohabitation?

(1) Sharing of familial or financial responsibilities and (2) Consortium.

Cohabitation is established by proof of (1) shared familial or financial responsibilities and (2) consortium. State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459, 465 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus. Relevant considerations include shared shelter and daily living arrangements, as well as mutual affection, companionship, and cooperation. Id. The weight of these factors is determined on a case-by-case basis by the trier of fact.

Established Case Law – Cohabitation

Here, P.H. testified that she and Mr. Branch were in a romantic relationship for at least one year and lived together on and off for approximately six months in the same boarding-house room. This testimony alone was sufficient to establish cohabitation. A majority of the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that where the evidence shows a romantic relationship and shared residence for an extended period, the State is not required to separately prove shared financial responsibilities or additional indicia of consortium. State v. McGlothan, 2014-Ohio-85, ¶ 15. See also State v. Martin, 2016-Ohio-225, ¶ 67 (5th Dist.); State v. Soto, 2025-Ohio-1788, ¶ 28 (5th Dist.). In McGlothan the parties had shared one residence for “about a year.” 2014-Ohio-85, ¶15. See also State v. Rossi, 2024-Ohio-2566, ¶ 21 (7th Dist.) (The victim testified they had been living together for six or seven months when the offense occurred); State v. Schwegmann, 2018-Ohio-3757, ¶ 18-19 (1st Dist.) (finding sufficient evidence of cohabitation where the defendant and the victim had been dating for six months and the defendant lived with the victim for a month prior to the domestic violence).

Conclusion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Branch and P.H. were cohabiting at the time of the offense and therefore qualified as family or household members under R.C. 2919.25.

Holding

Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support Mr. Branch’s conviction for domestic violence, and his sole assignment of error is overruled. For the reasons stated in our Opinion, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be paid by Appellant Eric Mr. Branch.

Information for this article was obtained from State v. Branch, 2026 – Ohio – 664.

State v. Branch, 2026 – Ohio – 664 was issued by the Fifth District Appellate court on February 26, 2026 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas.

Lessons Learned

  1. Like a WIFI connection with low bandwidth – This case addresses the challenge of determining if a couple who has an on then off again relationship comports to the ‘family or household’ member as the Ohio Revised Code identifies “family or household member” (in part) as: “(1)(a) Any of the following who is residing or has resided with the offender: (i) A spouse, a person living as a spouse, or a former spouse of the offender.” A “person living as a spouse” is defined as: “a person who is living or has lived with the offender in a common law marital relationship, who otherwise is cohabiting with the offender, or who otherwise has cohabited with the offender within five years prior to the date of the alleged commission of the act in question.” O.R.C. §2919.25(F)(2). Application of this statute becomes most challenging when the relationship is like a WIFI connection with low bandwidth that connects then disconnects.  After we begin with O.R.C. §2919.25(F)(2), now turn to the Supreme Court of Ohio that held “[T]he essential elements of ‘cohabitation’ are (1) Sharing of familial or financial responsibilities and (2) Consortium.” State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459, 465 (1997). However, on January 16, 2014 the Supreme Court of Ohio reduced this two-part test to one, requiring only Consortium when it held “Because the state demonstrated that the defendant was the victims boyfriend and that they had lived together for about a year, the state had no obligation to demonstrate the sharing of familial or financial responsibilities and consortium to prove cohabitation.”  State v. McGlothan, 2014 – Ohio – 85.  In this case the court concluded “Here, P.H. testified that she and Mr. Branch were in a romantic relationship for at least one year and lived together on and off for approximately six months in the same boarding-house room. This testimony alone was sufficient to establish cohabitation.”.  The Seventh District Appellate Court came to the same decision in State v. Joubert, 2024 – Ohio – 5052 on October 18, 2026.  I posted an article on this case December 29, 2025. https://www.objectivelyreasonable.com/2024/12/29/does-an-on-again-and-off-again-live-in-relationship-establish-cohabitation-for-purposes-of-the-domestic-violence-statute-3/
  2. Financial AND Consortium?  The Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459, 465 (1997) that the essential elements of Cohabitation are (1) Sharing of familial or financial responsibilities and (2) Consortium.  However, on January 16, 2014 the Supreme Court of Ohio reduced the test to only the consortium prong, “Because the state demonstrated that the defendant was the victim’s boyfriend and that they had lived together for about a year, the state had no obligation to demonstrate the sharing of familial or financial responsibilities and consortium to prove cohabitation in this case.” State v. McGlothan, 2014-Ohio-85.  So, in this case the court established cohabitation based on the victim’s testimony “Here, P.H. testified that she and Mr. Branch were in a romantic relationship for at least one year and lived together on and off for approximately six months in the same boarding-house room. This testimony alone was sufficient to establish cohabitation.”.
  3. Delayed Medical Care – Often times domestic violence victims initially want to pursue criminal charges while other times, victims do not.  In other cases, a delayed medical challenge can occur, like with the Mr. Branch’s girlfriend.  Law enforcement should be diligent to accurately document facts and statements made by victims and witnesses at the time the report is written.  The information obtained in real time can have a significant legal impact later.

Does your agency train on Domestic Violence?

Don’t fail your training.

Don’t let your training fail you!

Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!

Robert H. Meader Esq.