Legal Case

Toledo v. Klink

Klink

Citation

2025 Ohio 2316

Court

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided

June 30, 2025

Jurisdiction

SA

Importance

45%

Significant

Case Summary

[Cite as Toledo v. Klink, 2025-Ohio-2316.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY City of Toledo/State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-24-1251 L-24-1252 Appellee Trial Court No. 23 CRB 9484 23 CRB 11629 v. Nicole Klink DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: June 30, 2025 ***** Rebecca Facey, City of Toledo Prosecuting Attorney, and Jimmie Jones, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Autumn Adams, for appellant. ***** MAYLE, J. {¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, following a bench trial, defendant-appellant, Nicole Klink, appeals the October 3, 2024 judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court, convicting her of two counts of domestic violence, one count of menacing, and one count of assault. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment. I. Background {¶ 2} On the night of September 28, 2023, Klink and her husband, M.K., had an argument that became violent. At the time, Klink’s daughter and M.K.’s son, B.K., were also in the house. B.K. overheard the fight and called 911. When the police arrived, they spoke to everyone in the house and arrested Klink. After Klink’s arrest, the police filed complaints that became the subject of two separate cases. In Toledo Municipal Court case No. CRB-23-09484, Klink was charged with domestic violence menacing, a violation of R.C. 2919.25(C), a fourth-degree misdemeanor, and menacing, a violation of R.C. 2903.22(A), a fourth-degree misdemeanor. In Toledo Municipal Court case No. CRB-23-11629, Klink was charged with domestic violence assault, a violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a first-degree misdemeanor, and assault, a violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. {¶ 3} Before trial, Klink filed a notice of self-defense under Crim.R. 12. The two cases were consolidated and tried together to the bench on February 8, 2024. At trial, the city presented evidence from M.K. and B.K. It also admitted into evidence a recording of the 911 call, a cell phone video, and body camera footage. Klink presented evidence from one of the arresting officers, Toledo Police Officer Daniel Wood. She also testified in her own defense. 2. A. The city’s case 1. M.K’s testimony {¶ 4} M.K. testified that he and Klink argued for a long time on the night of September 28, 2023. Klink was particularly angry because her mother wanted restrictions on Klink’s visits with Klink’s son, so she had to go to court the following day. Klink blamed M.K. for her custody problems. M.K. also claimed that Klink had been drinking, which tended to make her “pretty aggressive.” {¶ 5} As the argument escalated, M.K. went upstairs to get away from Klink, but she followed him to their room. She hit him and threw things at him, including an ashtray, which hit him in the chest. To escape the attack, he went downstairs, but again, she followed. In the kitchen, she pulled out a drawer, which fell, and she grabbed something out of the drawer. As M.K. was leaving through the broken screen door, Klink “jab[bed]” through the hole in the door with an object that “sliced” his elbow. Later, she also bit him on the elbow. When the police arrived, but before they were in earshot, Klink threatened to stab M.K. again, which made him fear for his safety. {¶ 6} M.K. denied that he physically attacked Klink, but he acknowledged that he did try to block her attacks. He claimed that he did nothing to provoke her and begged her to “knock it off.” {¶ 7} On cross-examination, M.K. denied drinking at all on September 28, 2023. He explained that the fight went on for hours because it would “stop and pick back up.” M.K. claimed that he pulled out his phone during the fight and took a video of Klink 3. because “usually, when I video, she stops and calms down.” In the video, there are utensils on the floor and M.K. can clearly be heard saying “you’re pulling knives and shit, bitch,” screaming, and telling Klink to stop. When asked about his actions as shown in the video, M.K. denied following Klink. M.K. testified that the police had previously been called to the house for fights, but nobody had been arrested. 2. B.K’s testimony and 911 call {¶ 8} B.K. is M.K.’s 16-year-old son. He was in the house during the fight. From the time B.K. arrived at t

NEW FEATURE

Agentic Research

Unlock the power of AI-driven legal research. Our advanced agentic system autonomously analyzes cases, identifies patterns, and delivers comprehensive insights in minutes, not hours.

AI-Powered Analysis
Precise Legal Research
10x Faster Results

Join 2,500+ legal professionals

Case Details

Case Details

Legal case information

Status

Decided

Date Decided

June 30, 2025

Jurisdiction

SA

Court Type

federal

Legal Significance

Case importance metrics

Importance Score
Significant
Score45%
Citations
0

Metadata

Additional information

AddedJun 30, 2025
UpdatedJun 30, 2025

Quick Actions

Case management tools

AI-enhanced legal analysis

Case Summary

Summary of the key points and legal principles

Case Information

Detailed case metadata and classifications

Court Proceedings

Date FiledJune 30, 2025
Date DecidedJune 30, 2025

Document Details

Times Cited
0
Importance Score
0.5

Legal Classification

JurisdictionSA
Court Type
federal
Judicial Panel
Mayle
Opinion Author
Mayle