State v. Deveny, 2017 Ohio 560

On April 19, 2015, after Deveny and her husband Buff Anspaugh decided to separate, Anspaugh went to the marital property to collect belongings; a dispute arose over three horses kept in a barn.
Deveny allegedly threatened to shoot Anspaugh if he went into the barn; others on the property heard a loud argument, and deputies were called.
Deputies spoke with both parties; Deveny admitted to Deputy Boggs that she threatened to shoot Anspaugh (she later equivocated).
Anspaugh and a friend testified they believed Deveny and therefore did not enter the barn; Deveny and several witnesses denied hearing a gun threat.
Anspaugh filed a complaint alleging violation of Ohio R.C. 2919.25(C) (domestic violence by threat). Following a bench trial, the municipal court found Deveny guilty, sentenced her to suspended jail time and a fine, and Deveny appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying Crim.R. 29 (sufficiency of the evidence)	State: Testimony (Anspaugh, McKinney, deputy) provided sufficient evidence that Deveny knowingly made a threat causing fear of imminent harm	Deveny: Testimony did not show Anspaugh was in fear of imminent harm; threat was conditional and not executed	Court: Denial proper — viewed in light most favorable to State, evidence was sufficient to prove each element
Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: Credible testimony and Deveny’s admission support conviction; presence/availability of guns made threat imminent	Deveny: Threat was conditional and avoidable (Anspaugh did not attempt to enter barn); many defense witnesses denied hearing a shooting threat	Court: Not against manifest weight — trial court found State witnesses credible; threat plus evidence of guns could reasonably induce belief of imminent harm

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and weight standards for appellate review)
State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 683 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio 1997) (defines sufficiency inquiry — whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist. 1983) (articulates standard for manifest-weight review)
City of Cincinnati v. Baarlaer, 115 Ohio App.3d 521, 685 N.E.2d 836 (1st Dist. 1996) (distinguishes conditional threats tied to specific means from general threats for imminence analysis)
State v. Collie, 108 Ohio App.3d 580, 671 N.E.2d 338 (1st Dist. 1996) (example where threat reference to a gun without a present gun suggested lack of imminence)