State v. Klingel, 2017 Ohio 1183

Edward Klingel posted threats on Facebook (private messages to a contact and public status updates) targeting law enforcement, including specific threats to shoot a named female officer and calls to "kill some cops."
Lorain County indicted Klingel on multiple counts; trial proceeded after the State dismissed one count pretrial. Jury convicted Klingel of telecommunications harassment (R.C. 2917.21(B)) and making terroristic threats (R.C. 2909.23), acquitted on retaliation and obstruction; court sentenced him to 18 months.
Police and FBI were notified; the department restricted an officer’s duties and stationed an officer outside her home in response to Klingel’s posts.
Klingel appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence, (2) ineffective assistance for not moving to dismiss terroristic threats as unconstitutional, (3) plain error for omission in jury instruction on R.C. 2909.23(A)(2).
The Ninth District Court of Appeals reviewed the record, evidence, credibility, and jury instructions and affirmed the convictions and sentence.

Issue	Klingel's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence for terroristic threats	Statements were ramblings/protected speech, lacked intent to threaten	Posts and messages contained explicit, specific coordinated-threat content and were reasonably likely to be seen by police; supported purpose/knowledge elements	Convictions upheld: evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight
Sufficiency and manifest weight for telecommunications harassment	Messages were private and could not be known to reach police	Public status posts addressed law-enforcement; demonstrated purpose to threaten/harass	Conviction upheld: sufficient evidence and not against manifest weight
Ineffective assistance for failure to file pretrial First Amendment motion to dismiss terroristic-threat count	Trial counsel should have sought dismissal on free-speech grounds	Constitutional challenge depended on record evidence presented at trial; pretrial motion would have been premature	No ineffective assistance: counsel not objectively unreasonable; claim fails
Plain error for omission of R.C. 2909.23(A)(2) jury instruction (causation/fear of imminent commission)	Trial court failed to instruct on (A)(2), an essential element, warranting reversal	Jury was instructed on causation concept; record shows fear/immediacy (police precautions), so omission was not prejudicial	No plain error: omission did not cause manifest miscarriage of justice

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Cress, 112 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 2006) (definition and scope of a "threat" in criminal context)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight standard and role of appellate court as "thirteenth juror")
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (clarification of manifest-weight review)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (test for manifest miscarriage of justice on weight claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Reynolds, 80 Ohio St.3d 670 (Ohio 1998) (application of Strickland in Ohio)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (prejudice inquiry when jury instructions omit elements)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982) (appellate court functions as thirteenth juror on weight review)
State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1996) (plain-error reversal requires showing the result would clearly have been different)