State v. Intihar, 2015 Ohio 5507

On Dec. 11, 2014 Adam Intihar was charged with aggravated menacing after a road‑rage encounter in which he brandished a handgun at driver Ryan Laber while driving on a two‑lane public road. Intihar held a concealed‑carry permit and is an Ohio National Guard guardsman.
At trial Laber testified Intihar drew a handgun, turned on an interior light to make the gun obvious, looked angry, and Laber feared Intihar would use it—so he called 911 and followed Intihar into a parking lot.
Intihar testified he displayed the gun only as a deterrent during repeated dangerous driving exchanges and denied any intent to threaten or use it against Laber.
A jury acquitted Intihar of aggravated menacing but convicted him of the lesser included offense of menacing (R.C. 2903.22(A)).
The trial court sentenced Intihar to 30 days (27 suspended), a $250 fine, and five years’ probation that included a blanket condition prohibiting purchase, possession, or control of any deadly weapon or firearm at any time during probation.
On appeal the Twelfth District affirmed the conviction for menacing, rejected sufficiency and manifest‑weight challenges, but reversed and remanded the firearms‑ban probation condition for further consideration given Intihar’s National Guard service and Russell.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for menacing (R.C. 2903.22(A))	State: viewing evidence favorably, brandishing a gun and angry demeanor would cause belief of physical harm	Intihar: no overt verbal/physical threat; merely held gun in side‑profile, no point at Laber	Conviction for menacing was supported; sufficiency affirmed
Manifest weight of evidence	State: witness testimony credible; jury properly weighed testimony	Intihar: his testimony was more plausible; evidence weighs toward acquittal	Jury did not lose its way; manifest‑weight challenge denied
Applicability of Fields precedent (distinguishability)	State: Fields not controlling because this was public road, not trespass context	Intihar: argues Fields requires reversal as no direct threat or pointing	Court distinguished Fields and declined to apply it; conviction stands
Probation condition banning firearms at all times	State: probation conditions fall within court discretion to protect public/rehabilitate	Intihar: blanket, perpetual ban during probation is overbroad given his National Guard duties and permit status	Trial court abused discretion by imposing an absolute, all‑circumstances firearms ban; condition reversed and remanded for reconsideration

State v. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569 (Ohio 1996) (acquittal on charged count renders challenge to Crim.R. 29 moot)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standards for reviewing sufficiency and manifest weight)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (Jenkins/Jenks standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2014) (deference to factfinder on witness credibility)
State v. Fields, 84 Ohio App.3d 423 (12th Dist. 1992) (aggravated menacing reversed where no verbal/physical threat and defendant acted as property owner)
State v. Ali, 154 Ohio App.3d 493 (7th Dist. 2003) (menacing can encompass present and future fear of bodily harm)
State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 1990) (probation condition standards: relation to rehabilitation, crime, and future criminality)
State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 2004) (trial court discretion in probation conditions is broad but not limitless)