State v. Dillard, 2018 Ohio 4842

Twyla M. Dillard was tried on consolidated indictments charging menacing by stalking (three counts across two cases) and attempted burglary arising from events on or about April 24–25, 2016.
Victims Michael Jackson and Leslie Perrin had protection orders against Dillard; Jackson had an earlier municipal conviction for menacing by stalking involving Dillard.
State evidence: April 24 — Dillard allegedly damaged vehicles parked near Jackson/Perrin’s home; April 25 — Dillard allegedly appeared at Perrin’s house, attempted to force entry, and was seen on the porch; Perrin placed a 911 call.
Dillard moved for acquittal (Crim.R. 29) arguing the menacing-by-stalking counts alleged only April 24, so April 25 evidence could not be used to establish the statutorily required “pattern of conduct.” The trial court denied the motions; jury convicted on all counts.
On appeal Dillard argued (1) menacing by stalking convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the pattern required multiple incidents on the date alleged, and (2) attempted burglary conviction lacked sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The Tenth District affirmed the convictions but remanded to merge duplicate menacing-by-stalking counts in one case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/manifest weight of menacing-by-stalking convictions (pattern of conduct)	State argued evidence from April 24–25 could be considered under the indictment’s “on or about April 24, 2016” language and discovery gave notice of the incidents.	Dillard argued Scruggs requires the two-or-more actions forming the pattern be limited to the specific date alleged; April 25 evidence could not be used to establish the pattern.	Court held Scruggs is distinguishable: the indictment said “on or about April 24, 2016,” discovery included police reports/911 call, and the incidents spanned two days close in time — evidence supported a pattern; convictions upheld.
Sufficiency/manifest weight of attempted burglary conviction	State argued Dillard’s conduct in trying to enter Perrin’s home (kicking/pulling at locked doors with an object) was a substantial step toward burglary, satisfying attempt.	Dillard argued there was no proof she entered the residence, so burglary attempt was unsupported.	Court held attempt does not require success; the evidence showed a substantial step strongly corroborative of criminal purpose — attempted burglary conviction upheld.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (sets out sufficiency v. manifest-weight standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (defining sufficiency review standard)
State v. Scruggs, 136 Ohio App.3d 631 (2d Dist.) (discusses limits on using uncharged acts to establish the pattern element)
State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248 (defines criminal attempt and "substantial step")
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)