Barium & Chems., Inc. v. Miller, 2016 Ohio 5656

Barium & Chemicals, Inc. (plaintiff) sought a civil protection order under Ohio's menacing-by-stalking statute (R.C. 2903.211) against Ross Miller (defendant) after two incidents in April–May 2014.
Incident 1 (Apr. 7, 2014): Miller, then on medical leave, went to the workplace to retrieve belongings; employees testified he was agitated, used profanity, produced and opened a hunting knife in an intimidating manner, and said the company "had not seen the last of" him.
Incident 2 (May 8, 2014): Miller presented to the ER, told nursing staff he had suicidal and homicidal thoughts about coworkers (no specific targets named), then was transferred to inpatient psychiatric care; hospital staff notified law enforcement and the employer under a duty-to-warn policy.
After an ex parte protective order was entered, a full hearing was held; multiple witnesses testified (company officers/employees, ER nurse, behavioral health case manager); Miller did not testify.
The trial court denied the civil protection order, finding the hospital statements did not satisfy the statute's required mental state of "knowingly" and therefore did not establish the statutorily required "pattern of conduct." The court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statements made to medical personnel can constitute a "threat" under R.C. 2903.211 when the speaker had no reason to expect they would reach the employer	Barium: Such statements can be threats; the trial court wrongly treated patient-to-medical statements as categorically non-threatening	Miller: Statements made for diagnosis/treatment, not directed to the employer, were not intended to cause the employer to believe it was in danger	Court: No categorical rule; but on these facts the court reasonably found the ER statements were not knowingly made with awareness they would reach the employer and thus were not threats under the statute
Whether the evidence supported a finding of a "pattern of conduct" (two or more closely related incidents) and the requisite mens rea of "knowingly"	Barium: The ER statements, coupled with the workplace incident, established a second incident and Miller’s awareness that his statements would get back to the company, satisfying the pattern and mens rea	Miller: Only one workplace incident was provable; ER statements were made to clinicians for treatment and there was no evidence Miller knew they would be reported to the employer	Court: Affirmed trial court’s credibility determinations; insufficient evidence that Miller knew his ER statements would likely reach Barium, so no pattern established and denial was not against manifest weight of the evidence

State v. Scruggs, 136 Ohio App.3d 631 (2d Dist. 2000) (one incident is insufficient to establish a statutory "pattern of conduct")
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing whether a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (judgment supported by competent, credible evidence will not be reversed as against the manifest weight)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (finder of fact has broad discretion to assess witness credibility)