State v. Pariscoff, 2019 Ohio 172

Mark Pariscoff (defendant) called his twin sister R.B. initially about housing; discussion escalated into threats and abusive language.
Over roughly three hours Pariscoff made 29 calls to R.B.'s cell phone; she hung up repeatedly and told him to stop.
R.B. testified Pariscoff threatened to slap her, told her to “watch [her] back,” and said he would set her house on fire; she reported being fearful.
Deputies verified 29 incoming calls logged on R.B.’s phone and contacted Pariscoff, who told them he would continue calling and used abusive language about his sister.
Pariscoff admitted making numerous calls but claimed dropped calls and lack of intent to harass; he denied making certain threats and said some remarks were provoked.
A jury convicted Pariscoff of telephone harassment under R.C. 2917.21(A)(1) (purpose to harass, intimidate, or abuse) but acquitted on a related subdivision; he was sentenced to 30 days jail (stayed pending appeal).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence (intent to harass)	State: evidence (28 subsequent calls, threats, ignoring commands to stop) supports finding of knowing purpose to harass/intimidate/abuse	Pariscoff: repeated calls resulted from dropped calls and intent was to seek help, not to harass; any harsh words were provoked	Affirmed — jury reasonably credited State’s witnesses; not an exceptional case warranting reversal on manifest weight grounds
Whether trial judge’s conduct denied a fair trial (prejudicial remarks/interruptions)	State: court’s conduct did not create reversible error; defendant failed to preserve objections	Pariscoff: judge repeatedly interrupted counsel and admonished him before objections, suggesting bias and prejudicing the jury	Affirmed — issue forfeited by failure to timely object; appellant did not argue plain error on appeal, so appellate court declined to address it

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist.) (standard for manifest weight review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discretion to reverse on manifest weight should be exercised only in exceptional cases)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (manifest weight standard discussion)
State v. Wade, 53 Ohio St.2d 182 (trial judge’s influence on jury and prohibition on prejudicial remarks)
Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614 (early statement on judicial influence over jury)
State v. Williams, 51 Ohio St.2d 112 (requirement to timely object to preserve judicial conduct complaints)