[T]he trial court did not clearly lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice when it believed Mr. Phelps and Ms. Eaton’s version of the events … [T]his court, like the trial court, finds it more believable that Ms. Gaines was acting in the manner described by Mr. Phelps and Ms. Eaton.
Toledo v. Gaines
Sixth District Appellate Court
May 26, 2026
Why is this case important?
Toledo v. Gaines is important because it illustrates how quickly a parent-school dispute can evolve into criminal conduct when emotions override judgment. The decision reinforces that schools have the authority to maintain order, restrict access and require visitors to comply with security procedures. For law enforcement officers and school resource officers, the case provides a practical example of how disruptive conduct, threats, refusal to leave and interference with school operations can support criminal-trespass charges.
Background
On February 9, 2024, Ms. Magic Gaines was charged by complaint with one count of Disrupting School Activity in violation of Toledo Municipal Code §537.16, a misdemeanor of the first degree, and one count of Criminal Trespass in violation of O.R.C. §2911.21(A)(2), a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. The charges stemmed from her conduct on February 1, 2024, where she allegedly came onto the premises of Skyway Academy, tried to get past security, pounded on the door and cursed at staff, said she would “beat [the staff member’s] ass,” and then knowingly remained on the property after she was told to leave.
Ms. Gaines pleaded not guilty, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial.
Ms. Gaines arrived ten minutes after her son Z.G. was suspended from Skyway Career Prepartory High School, 3912 Sunforest Court, Toledo, Ohio. Her behaviors led to two criminal charges. Can a parent be convicted of refusing to leave her son’s school?
Turn in Your Phone or Be Suspended
The City first called Jalen Phelps, who was the security officer for Skyway Career Preparatory High School. Mr. Phelps testified that on February 1, 2024, he heard Ms. Gaines’s son, Z.G., talking on his cell phone in the bathroom. The school had a policy that students were not allowed to have cell phones in the building. Mr. Phelps, therefore, confronted Z.G. and walked him to the office of Willie Eaton, the assistant principal. Mr. Phelps testified that Z.G. was given the option of surrendering his cell phone or being suspended and Z.G. chose to be suspended.
Ms. Gaines Spewed a Profanity Laced Harangue and Repeatedly Hit the Window
About ten minutes after Z.G. left the building, Ms. Gaines arrived at the school. Ms. Gaines immediately came up the stairs and saw Mr. Phelps standing behind a glass window and locked doors. The upstairs of the school is where the classrooms are located. Mr. Phelps instructed Ms. Gaines to go downstairs to check in at the office as per the normal protocol. He testified that instead he was met with “profanity and, you know, more profanity.” He described that Ms. Gaines was becoming increasingly irate. For the next six or seven minutes, Ms. Gaines yelled profanities and hit the window. Mr. Phelps described that Ms. Gaines was hitting the window so hard that he was worried it was going to break. The commotion alerted all the students, who came to their classroom doors to see what was going on.
Shouting Match – Police are Called – Ms. Phelps Left
After those few minutes, the principal went down the back stairway and Ms. Gaines went down the main stairway to meet in the office. Mr. Phelps followed Ms. Gaines. When he arrived in the office, a shouting match was already occurring between the principal and Ms. Gaines. Mr. Phelps testified that Ms. Gaines was asked to leave the premises, but she did not do so right away. She only left after she knew that the police were being called.
Previous Run Ins With Z.G.
On cross-examination, Mr. Phelps testified that he previously had a few “run-ins” with Z.G., including an allegation that Mr. Phelps called Z.G. an inappropriate name. At the beginning he did not have a good relationship with Z.G., but he testified that it “got better” towards the end of the year.
Testimony of Assistant Principal Ms. Eaton
Ms. Eaton, the assistant principal, testified next. Ms. Eaton stated that she heard over the walkie-talkie that Ms. Gaines had entered the building and wanted to see her. Ms. Eaton was instructed to stay in her office and not come meet Ms. Gaines for fear that it would escalate the situation. Ms. Eaton did not see Ms. Gaines, but she heard Ms. Gaines loudly asking where she was and asking to see her. Ms. Eaton did not believe that Ms. Gaines was cursing, but she heard Ms. Gaines being loud and hitting the glass window. While this was going on, Ms. Eaton also heard the classroom teachers telling their students to stay in their seats, informing them not to get up and that everything is fine. Ms. Eaton testified that after the incident, one or two students wanted to call their parents and go home for the day.
Toledo Police Officer Scott Histed
Finally, the City called Toledo Police Officer Scott Histed. Histed responded to the scene, but by that time Ms. Gaines had already left.
Directed Verdict was Denied
After the City rested, Ms. Gaines moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, which the trial court denied.
Ms. Gaines Testified that Z.G. Could Not Turn in a Phone he Did Not Possess
Ms. Gaines then testified in her own defense. She stated that on the morning of February 1, 2024, Z.G. called her to come pick him up because Ms. Eaton was demanding that he could not come into the school unless he turned in a blue iPhone, which he did not have. When Ms. Gaines arrived, she asked to speak with Ms. Eaton, but Ms. Eaton was not available. She then left the building and tried to call the school to speak with “someone of power.” She testified that she was already outside of the school when the police arrived.
Ms. Gaines’ Testimony
Ms. Gaines was adamant that she did not cause a disruption at the school. She stated that she did not touch anyone at the school, did not physically abuse anyone, and did not do anything to cause a “major disruption.” She denied yelling or banging on the glass, and she stated that Mr. Phelps was lying about her conduct. She maintained that she simply went upstairs, asked to speak with Ms. Eaton, and when Ms. Eaton did not appear went downstairs and talked to the principal. She recounted the conversation as:
She had said to me if he doesn’t turn in the blue iPhone, he cannot come to school. He keeps sneaking phones in here. And I said he does not have a blue iPhone, he never has, so there is nothing that he can turn in. All I want for my son to do is to finish school so he can graduate, because he only had a couple months left. And she said if you’re not satisfied with the school here, then why don’t you remove your son. I said it’s close to the end of the year, so he’s too close to graduating. I asked them if he could just do his work at home. She said, well, you need to leave. And I said can my son stay at this school today. And she said if he doesn’t have – doesn’t turn in that blue iPhone, then no. I asked her why. She said to leave. I said, you know what, okay. And then I left to go to call the superintendent for somebody higher up.
Finally, she testified that she did not see any students in the classrooms, “except for the ones walking in,” nor did she see anyone standing by the doors of the classrooms.
Trial Court Found Ms. Gaines Guilty
Following the testimony and closing arguments, the trial court found Ms. Gaines guilty of both charges. It then informed the parties that,
Court would be inclined to order – the child’s already gone from school. The Court would be inclined to give the defendant until June 17 to complete an Anger Management Program. If the Anger Management Program has been completed, then the Court would be inclined to order costs for the student (sic). . . . So if she completes the anger management, come back here June 17, the Court would be inclined to order — City wish to be heard in regards — we’ll set sentencing, but I guess I’d indicate that the Court’s intention — of course I would, obviously, hear the arguments from counsel at that time considering the defendant’s counsel’s argument as well the City’s argument. But she would, at the very least, put herself in a far better position should she come back with completion of anger management. . . .
We’re not sentencing today.
Ms. Gaines Produced a Slip she Completed Anger Management
At the sentencing hearing on June 17, 2025, Ms. Gaines produced a slip showing that she completed an anger management class. The trial court then sentenced her to pay court costs by August 20, 2025. Before Ms. Gaines left, the trial court informed her that she does have an automatic right to appeal, which must be done within 30 days, and that she has a right to an attorney, and if she cannot afford one, one will be appointed for her.
Note: Ms. Gaines filed two appeals, the first appeal was based on the court failed to he inform her of her appellate rights. That appeal was denied but is not evaluated in this article. The second appeal focused on her guilty verdict was against manifest weight of the evidence. That appeal is evaluated here:
Appeal
In her second assignment of error, Ms. Gaines argues that her convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Disrupting School Activity – Toledo Municipal Code §537.16
In this case, Ms. Gaines was convicted of Disrupting School Activity in violation of Toledo Municipal Code §537.16, which provides:
(a) No person shall assault, strike, threaten or menace a teacher, instructor, professor, person in charge of a class of students or any employee of any school, college or university, while in the performance of his duties, or disrupt, disturb or interfere with the teaching of any class of students, or disrupt, disturb or interfere with any activity conducted in a school, college, or university building, or upon the campus or grounds thereof, or in any public place, or improperly and unlawfully assault, strike, threaten, menace, follow, pursue or lay hands upon a student or other person in a school, college or university building, or upon the grounds or campus thereof, or upon the way to or from any school, college or university, or on the way to and from any school, college or university sponsored activity.
Criminal Trespass O.R.C. §2911.21
She was also convicted of Criminal Trespass in violation of O.R.C. §2911.21(A)(2), which states, “No person, without privilege to do so, shall . . . (2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard.”
Ms. Gaines Did Not Believe her Behavior Violated City or State Statutes
Ms. Gaines does not argue that the alleged conduct does not constitute the offenses. Instead, she argues that the evidence does not prove that the alleged conduct occurred. She states that only one of the State’s witnesses was in a position to observe her behavior. Further, she maintains that only one witness testified that some children might have been disturbed. Finally, she asserts that she left on her own after being asked.
Application of Testimony to the City and State Statutes
Upon review, this is not the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. This is a matter of witness credibility. On the one hand, Mr. Phelps and Ms. Eaton testified that Ms. Gaines was yelling and banging on the window glass in such a manner that it disrupted the classrooms and caused the students to try to look out to see what was happening. Mr. Phelps also testified that Ms. Gaines did not leave school grounds when asked and only left once she knew the police had been called. On the other hand, Ms. Gaines testified that she did not yell or hit the glass but simply went upstairs to talk to Ms. Eaton, and when Ms. Eaton was not there, she went downstairs to talk to the principal. During the conversation with the principal, she was asked to leave twice in a matter of seconds, following which she left to call the superintendent.
Conclusion and Holding
Weighing the evidence and considering the credibility of the witnesses, the trial court did not clearly lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice when it believed Mr. Phelps and Ms. Eaton’s version of the events. Persuasive to this court is the fact that the situation escalated within a matter of minutes to where the principal felt compelled to call the police. The principal’s response would be irrational if Ms. Gaines were calmly seeking to discuss the issue as she suggests. Instead, this court, like the trial court, finds it more believable that Ms. Gaines was acting in the manner described by Mr. Phelps and Ms. Eaton.
Accordingly, Ms. Gaines’s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Her second assignment of error is not well-taken.
Information for this article was obtained from Toledo v. Gaines, 2026 – Ohio – 1929.
Toledo v. Gaines, 2026 – Ohio – 1929 was issued by the Sixth District Appellate Court on May 26, 2026 and is binding in the follow Ohio Counties: Erie, Fulton, Huron, Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Williams and Wood.
Lessons Learned
Can Schools Restrict Parents from Entering the School? Criminal Trespass O.R.C. §2911.21(A)(2) states in pertinent part “No person, without privilege to do so, shall . . . (2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard.”. Schools may lawfully restrict access to visitors – to include parents, require check-in procedures and direct individuals to leave. Once a person is told to leave and knowingly remains, a criminal trespass charge may be appropriate.
Could Ms. Gaines’ have Been a Custodial Arrest? Even though Ms. Gaines had left prior to the arrival of Officer Histed, a Criminal Trespass charge and conviction was obtained. Criminal Trespass is a misdemeanor and though a suspect may be charged with this crime, an officer may not make a custodial arrest if it did not occur in his presence. However, Aggravated Trespass, O.R.C. §2911.211 is a non on-view misdemeanor exception where law enforcement may make a custodial arrest. Therefore, the suspect may be arrested even if the Aggravated Trespass did not occur in his presence. The elements of Aggravated Trespass are: O.R.C. §2911.211 “(A)(1) No person shall enter or remain on the land or premises of another with purpose to commit on that land or those premises a misdemeanor, the elements of which involve causing physical harm to another person or causing another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to that person.”. In this case Ms. Gaines’ behaviors did not rise to the level of physical harm. However, if her behaviors escalated to include physical harm or the threat of physical harm, then Aggravated Trespass may have been an appropriate charge.
Witness Credibility – This case was not won because of sophisticated legal arguments. It was won because the trial court believed the testimony of the Security Officer Mr. Phelps and Assistant Principal Ms. Eaton rather than Ms. Gaines. Officers should focus on obtaining accurate statements in real time that should be supported by clear, consistent and credible testimony often will be the deciding factors in a criminal conviction. Even though Ms. Eaton did not personally observe all of Ms. Gaines’s conduct, she heard the yelling, heard the banging on the glass and observed teachers attempting to keep students in their classrooms. Ms. Eaton’s testimony corroborated the security officer’s account and strengthened the prosecution’s case.
Does your agency train on Criminal Trespass?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!