State v. Baker, 2021 Ohio 272

Joshua Baker and the victim had a longstanding, volatile relationship and four children; Baker had a history of verbal and physical violence toward the victim (including temporarily blinding her right eye and throwing a rock through a window).
After an argument about child support in late June 2020, Baker sent texts threatening to kill the victim, cut her vehicle's brake lines, and jeopardize her employment.
The victim testified she was "scared" and feared Baker could imminently harm her; she reported the threats to police several days later and Baker was charged under R.C. 2919.25(C) (domestic violence by threat of force).
Baker waived a jury, was tried by the bench, found guilty, and sentenced to 30 days in jail.
On appeal Baker raised (1) sufficiency/manifest-weight of the evidence as to the victim’s belief of imminent harm, and (2) erroneous admission of other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B).
The majority affirmed the conviction and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion admitting other-acts evidence; a separate judge dissented on the imminency element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Sufficiency/manifest weight: did State prove the victim believed Baker would cause imminent physical harm under R.C. 2919.25(C)?	State: Victim testified she was scared and feared imminent harm from Baker given the unqualified death threat and his violent history; that belief was reasonable.	Baker: Victim’s delay in reporting, the remote text, and her statement she didn’t think he would come over show no reasonable belief of imminent harm.	Held: Affirmed. The victim’s testimony and Baker’s prior violent acts supported a reasonable belief of imminent harm; conviction not against sufficiency or manifest weight.
2. Admission of other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) (rock incident; prior violence including blinding)	State: Prior acts were admissible to show the victim’s state of mind and why her fear was reasonable, not to show propensity.	Baker: Such evidence was prejudicial and used to show propensity rather than a proper nonpropensity purpose.	Held: Affirmed. The court found the evidence relevant to the victim’s belief, established the acts occurred, and was not more prejudicial than probative; admission proper.

State v. Cress, 112 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio Supreme Court defining "threat" as conduct or statements intended to create apprehension)
City of Hamilton v. Cameron, 121 Ohio App.3d 445 (12th Dist.) (victim's state of mind is an essential element of domestic-violence-by-threat)
Baarlaer v. Cincinnati, 115 Ohio App.3d 521 (1st Dist.) (threat made from custody not imminent where defendant physically distant)
State v. Drake, 135 Ohio App.3d 507 (12th Dist.) (explicit death threat can support fear of imminent physical harm)