State v. Kronenberg, 2012 Ohio 589

Kronenberg was previously convicted of telecommunications harassment with the same victim and was subject to a protection order prohibiting contact in any form for five years.
The court convicted Kronenberg of violating the protection order and of telecommunications harassment after she twice called the victim and appeared at his home.
Kronenberg testified she acted out of desperation due to homelessness and sought aid, not to harass; she claimed lack of intent to harass.
The charge was brought under R.C. 2917.21(B), which prohibits making a telecommunication with the purpose to abuse, threaten, or harass another person.
The court found the evidence sufficient and affirmed the conviction, rejecting manifest weight and other challenges, and remanded for execution of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there sufficient evidence of harassment under 2917.21(B)?	Kronenberg did not intend to harass; two calls failed to show purpose to harass.	The calls were not proof of harassing purpose; necessity and lack of intent negate liability.	Yes; one or more calls under the circumstances sufficed to show purpose to harass.
Is the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence?	Record shows no intent to harass; actions were not harassing.	Trial court properly weighed credibility and found intent to harass.	No; the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Was Kronenberg entitled to a necessity defense to contact the victim?	Defense of necessity justified by homelessness and need for aid.	Necessity not a valid defense; the order prohibited contact regardless of need.	Not accepted as a defense; the court could rationally find lack of necessity.
Is R.C. 2917.21(B) unconstitutionally vague or overbroad?	Challenge to the statute’s vagueness/overbreadth.	Statute too vague/overbroad to apply.	Waived for not raised at trial; no reversible error.

State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (2002-Ohio-2126) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Jackson, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (analysis for sufficiency of evidence in criminal trials (federal standard))
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist.1986) (manifest weight review requires weighing all evidence)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (paraphrase of standard for manifest weight review)
State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61 (1964) (credibility determinations reside with the trier of fact)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (waiver doctrine for constitutional challenges not raised at trial)