State v. Kinstle, 2012 Ohio 5952

State indicted Kinstle on 23 counts of intimidation under R.C. 2921.03(A) for sending notarized documents to public officials during legal actions against him.
Documents demanded that victims abstain from actions or pay large sums, though none were filed in court.
Three prior actions (2005 foreclosure, 2010 arson, and a vexatious-litigant civil finding) were central to the alleged intimidation.
Kinstle moved to dismiss the indictment as unconstitutional; motion denied; trial held June 27–29, 2011.
Jury convicted on all counts; sentencing imposed as two consecutive four-year terms (total eight years).
On appeal, Kinstle challenged (I) constitutionality, (II) weight of the evidence, (III) sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of R.C. 2921.03 as applied	Kinstle argues overbreadth/vagueness and unconstitutional as applied	Kinstle contends statute violates US/Ohio constitutions	Statute not overbroad or vague; not unconstitutional as applied
Manifests weight of the evidence for 23 counts	State presented overwhelming proof for each count	Convictions against weight requiring reversal	Convictions not against the manifest weight; evidence sufficient
Consecutive sentencing and allied offenses	Counts not allied offenses; consecutive sentences proper	Counts should have merged as allied offenses; sentencing improper	Counts not allied; consecutive eight-year sentence within law

State v. Roten, 149 Ohio App.3d 182 (2002-Ohio-4488) (upholds intimidation conviction where non-physical threats depicted via documents)
State v. Haskell, 2004-Ohio-3345 (2004-Ohio-3345) (facial validity of R.C. 2921.03; vagueness analysis guidance)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-part abuse-of-discretion framework for felony sentencing)
State v. Collier, 62 Ohio St.3d 267 (1991) (overbreadth considerations in First Amendment contexts (statutory analysis framework))