State v. Marshall, 103 N.E.3d 61

Jeremy J. Marshall was charged by complaint (Madison County) with one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C) after a family altercation on April 29, 2016.
At trial the victim (his mother, Kathleen) and his sister testified that Marshall angrily damaged gutters outside, then entered a locked bedroom where Kathleen and others had sought refuge.
Marshall allegedly unlocked the door (possibly with scissors), approached Kathleen in an aggressive manner, put his forehead against hers, forced her back onto the bed and was on top of her; Kathleen testified she feared he might hit her and raised her knees defensively.
The municipal court found Marshall guilty after a bench trial; he appealed raising challenges to sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and two legal-contention errors: that threats must be verbal and that the victim was not a family member for purposes of the statute.
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, rejecting arguments that nonverbal conduct cannot constitute a threat and that Kathleen did not qualify as a family/household member.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nonverbal conduct can constitute a "threat of force" under R.C. 2919.25(C)	State: Nonverbal conduct can constitute a threat if it causes belief in imminent harm	Marshall: Threats must be verbal; nonverbal acts insufficient	Court: Nonverbal conduct may establish a threat when defendant acted knowingly and caused victim to anticipate imminent harm — overruled defendant
Whether the conduct constituted a threatening act	State: Aggressive approach and forcing mother onto bed was intimidating and threatening	Marshall: Physical act did not amount to a threat of force	Court: Physical behavior was intended to intimidate and supported a threatening-act finding
Whether victim believed imminent physical harm would occur (element of R.C. 2919.25(C))	State: Kathleen’s testimony and defensive actions show she anticipated physical harm	Marshall: Kathleen testified she was not afraid, so belief element not met	Court: Victim need not state fear; her uncertainty and defensive posture demonstrated belief that imminent physical harm was possible — element satisfied
Whether the victim was a "family or household member"	State: Kathleen is defendant’s mother and qualifies under statute	Marshall: Contends mismatch because only verbal suicide threat was to himself; implies misdirected threat	Court: Threat was directed at Kathleen (his mother); she qualifies as a family member — argument rejected

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (establishes sufficiency review standard for criminal convictions)
Hamilton v. Cameron, 121 Ohio App.3d 445 (victim’s belief is essential element of R.C. 2919.25(C))
State v. Dorso, 4 Ohio St.3d 60 (undefined statutory terms given common, everyday meaning)