State v. Powell
2020 Ohio 4283
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Powell and Haines are the parents of a three-year-old; their romantic relationship had ended and Haines expressly did not want contact.
- On May 26, 2019 Powell sent Haines a text with a video and an expletive-laden message chastising him for missing their son’s life and referencing prior court/police actions.
- Haines blocked Powell; shortly after he received similar texts from unknown numbers (not admitted at trial) and an email from Powell about unblocking and child-related documents.
- After contacting police, Haines sent Powell a text quoting R.C. 2917.21: “DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN…” listing his numbers; Powell replied with further texts asserting court-ordered obligations and threatening contempt proceedings.
- Powell testified her purpose was to get Haines involved in their child’s life and to deliver the child’s medical card; the trial court found the tone and repeated contacts showed a purpose to harass.
- The court convicted Powell of telecommunications harassment (R.C. 2917.21(B)(1)), suspended a 180-day jail sentence, placed her on community control, and ordered no contact with Haines. Powell appealed arguing insufficiency and weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Powell sent a telecommunication with purpose to harass under R.C. 2917.21(B)(1) | State: texts/email showed an acerbic, taunting tone and repeated contact after Haines said no contact — sufficient to show intent to harass | Powell: communications sought to involve Haines in the child’s life and obtain court-ordered documents, not to harass | Court: Affirmed — evidence was sufficient and conviction not against manifest weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (defines sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (weight-of-the-evidence standard; "thirteenth juror")
- State v. Ellison, 178 Ohio App.3d 734, 900 N.E.2d 228 (mens rea for harassment requires intent to alarm or cause substantial emotional distress)
- City of Hamilton v. Combs, 131 N.E.3d 297 (repeated unwanted communications indicate intent to harass)
- State v. Spaulding, 151 Ohio St.3d 378, 89 N.E.3d 554 (trial court best positioned to judge witness credibility)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (standard on trial-court credibility determinations)