State v. Lampela, 2016 Ohio 8007

Defendant Robert D. Lampela was chief of the Put‑In‑Bay Police Department; an incident from March 10, 2010 formed the basis for later criminal charges.
At a post‑meeting conversation with two subordinates, Lampela removed his service weapon (allegedly made safe by removing magazine and chambered round) and asked, "What’s the Second Amendment?" leading to a complaint.
In 2015 Lampela was charged with aggravated menacing (and other counts); at bench trial he was acquitted of aggravated menacing but convicted of disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(5) as a purported lesser‑included offense.
Lampela appealed, arguing inter alia that disorderly conduct (A)(5) is not a lesser‑included offense of aggravated menacing and that the conviction therefore was plain error.
The Sixth District reversed, holding that (A)(5) contains an element—conduct that "serves no lawful and reasonable purpose"—not present in the aggravated‑menacing statute, so it cannot be a lesser‑included offense; the conviction was vacated and defendant discharged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(5) is a lesser‑included offense of aggravated menacing (R.C. 2903.21(A))	State: Under Evans/Deem tests, defendant had notice and the statutes should be read by substance, so (A)(5) can be treated as a lesser offense	Lampela: (A)(5) requires an additional element (absence of a lawful and reasonable purpose) not in aggravated menacing, so it cannot be a lesser‑included offense	Court: Reversed conviction — (A)(5) is not a lesser‑included offense because it includes an element absent from aggravated menacing; conviction vacated (plain error)
Other appellate claims (statute of limitations, sufficiency/weight, ineffective assistance)	State: argued conviction valid	Lampela: raised multiple errors (limitations, insufficiency, weight, counsel)	Court: Did not reach these issues after reversal on the lesser‑included‑offense ground

State v. Evans, 122 Ohio St.3d 381 (Ohio 2009) (refined lesser‑included analysis and emphasized statutory‑elements focus)
State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (Ohio 1988) (Deem test for lesser‑included offenses)
State v. Deanda, 136 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 2013) (warning to separate case facts from statutory‑elements analysis for notice purposes)
State v. Meyer, 61 Ohio App.3d 673 (Ohio App. 1989) (recognizing lack of lawful and reasonable purpose as element of disorderly conduct (A)(5))
State v. Compton, 153 Ohio App.3d 512 (Ohio App. 2003) (comparison of menacing‑type statutes with disorderly conduct provisions)
State v. Gary, 117 Ohio App.3d 286 (Ohio App. 1996) (plain error where defendant convicted of offense that was not a lesser‑included offense)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain‑error doctrine discussion)
State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 (Ohio 2002) (standard for plain error review)