State v. Dhimal, 2026-Ohio-1805

Dhimal was indicted for burglary, kidnapping, abduction, and gross sexual imposition after allegedly entering a family's home and restraining a minor child in her bedroom. 1
The trial court found Dhimal incompetent, later restored him briefly to competency, then found him again incompetent and not restorable within the statutory time. 2
The state moved to retain jurisdiction under R.C. 2945.39, and a two-day hearing followed with testimony from the victim, two police officers, and the mother's boyfriend. 3
At the hearing, Melissa testified Dhimal entered her room, got on top of her, restrained her, touched her breasts, and said, 'let me fuck you.' 4
The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Dhimal committed burglary and kidnapping, was mentally ill subject to court order, and ordered commitment for up to 11 years. 5
Dhimal appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove the purpose element of burglary and kidnapping and that the court had to state the maximum confinement term in its order. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must R.C. 2945.39 analysis include mens rea? 7	State said no scienter finding was required.	Dhimal said purpose had to be proved.	Court held mens rea must be found under the statute. 8
Was there sufficient evidence of purpose for burglary? 9	State showed Dhimal entered stealthily and intended a crime.	Dhimal lacked purpose and acted delusionally.	Court found sufficient evidence of purpose for burglary. 10
Was there sufficient evidence of purpose for kidnapping? 11	State showed restraint to engage in sexual activity.	Dhimal lacked purposeful intent.	Court found sufficient evidence of purpose for kidnapping. 12
Must the commitment order state the maximum term? 13	State said no statute required that detail.	Dhimal said omission required remand.	Court held omission was not error and any error was harmless. 14

State v. Hopkins, 2023-Ohio-2816 (12th Dist. 2023) (describes R.C. 2945.38 and R.C. 2945.39 procedure 15)
State v. Tanner, 2025-Ohio-5689 (12th Dist. 2025) (defines clear and convincing evidence 16)
State v. Williams, 126 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 2010) (R.C. 2945.39 is civil in nature and discusses scienter language 17)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (distinguishes sufficiency from manifest weight in civil cases 18)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (sufficiency is a question of law 19)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (civil sufficiency asks whether competent, credible evidence supports the judgment 20)
State v. Cargile, 115 Ohio St.3d 255 (Ohio 2009) (explains actus reus and mens rea terminology 21)
Akron v. Peoples, 9 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2011) (uses the actus reus/mens rea framework 22)
State v. Johnson, 56 Ohio St.2d 35 (Ohio 1978) (intent may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances 23)
State v. West, unknown (Ohio 2022) (diminished capacity is not recognized in Ohio 24)
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997) (scienter requirements are typically associated with criminal statutes 25)