State v. Race, 2017 Ohio 612

Defendant Casey L. Race was charged with multiple offenses; only the domestic-violence conviction under R.C. 2919.25(C) is at issue on appeal.
The conviction rested solely on the victim (his mother) testifying that Race called her and said he would kill her and anyone who joined her if she returned home from the hospital.
The victim was at the hospital when the call occurred; she testified she felt "not good" but was unsure whether Race was serious and did not feel in immediate danger at that time.
The threat was conditional on the victim’s returning home (i.e., it would be carried out if she returned).
Trial court denied a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal and convicted Race; he was sentenced to 30 days on the domestic-violence count (part of an aggregate 17-month term). Race appealed only the domestic-violence conviction.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, vacating the domestic-violence conviction and sentence and remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove the element of belief in imminent physical harm under R.C. 2919.25(C)	Victim’s testimony that Race said he would kill her and anyone who joined her supports a conviction	Threat was conditional on her returning home and thus not an imminent threat; victim did not feel in immediate danger at the time	Reversed — conditional phone threat did not establish imminent harm; evidence insufficient
Whether denial of Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal was proper	State: reasonable minds could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on victim’s testimony	Race: no reasonable juror could find imminence from a conditional, nonimmediate threat	Reversed — Crim.R. 29 should have been granted as to the R.C. 2919.25(C) count

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261, 381 N.E.2d 184 (Ohio 1978) (standard for reviewing a Crim.R. 29 motion)
State v. Fisher, 968 N.E.2d 510 (Ohio Ct. App.) (defining “imminent” as near at hand or impending; victim’s belief that harm is immediate)
State v. Schweitzer, 30 N.E.3d 190 (Ohio Ct. App.) (conditional threats generally insufficient for the imminence element)
State v. Collie, 671 N.E.2d 338 (Ohio Ct. App.) (explaining conditional threats and distinction from menacing)
City of Cincinnati v. Baarlaer, 685 N.E.2d 836 (Ohio Ct. App.) (reversing where phone threat was conditional and not imminently actionable)