City of Cleveland v. Hernandez, 950 N.E.2d 1040

Hernandez charged with Cleveland Codified Ordinance 621.06(a) aggravated menacing, aligned with R.C. 2903.21(A).
Alleged threats were communicated to Garcia's employer while she was at work, not directly to Garcia.
Employer notified Garcia; police contacted; charges filed against Hernandez.
Aggravated menacing requires knowingly causing another to believe the offender will cause serious physical harm.
There is appellate split on whether threats must be direct to the victim or immediate family; Cleveland sits in the unaddressed Eighth District.
Court adopts Knoble approach, holding threat need not be direct to satisfy the statute; communications via a messenger can suffice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must aggravated menacing be a direct threat to the victim or immediate family?	Hernandez contends only direct threats qualify.	Court should follow Knoble; the statute does not require directness.	No directness required; threat via third party can satisfy mens rea and causation.

State v. Hileman, 2005-Ohio-1698 (5th Dist. 2005) (recognizes broader reading of 'knowingly' in aggravated menacing)
State v. Richard, 129 Ohio App.3d 556, 718 N.E.2d 508 (1998) (legislative history supports threat against immediate family may suffice)
State v. Knoble, 2008-Ohio-5004 (9th Dist. 2008) (aggravated-menacing statute does not require direct threat to victim)
In re Cunningham, 2002-Ohio-5875 (7th Dist. 2002) (cites applicable interpretation of aggravated menacing language)