State v. Schils, 2020 Ohio 2883

Appellant James Schils was charged with criminal trespass (R.C. 2911.21(A)(1)) and disorderly conduct (R.C. 2917.11(A)(3)) after an uninvited visit to his children at his ex‑wife’s fiancé’s residence.
Schils waived counsel and proceeded to a bench trial before a magistrate; the State introduced the victim’s testimony and a cell‑phone video of the encounter; Schils testified and presented two defense witnesses.
Video shows Schils entering the victim’s yard, exchanging profanity and taunts, making short lunging motions toward the victim, saying “it’s coming,” and leaving after roughly 20 seconds.
The magistrate found Schils guilty of both offenses; the court imposed a suspended 15‑day jail term (subject to community service, fines, and stay‑away order) for trespass and a fine for disorderly conduct.
On appeal Schils argued (1) insufficient evidence and (2) convictions against the manifest weight of the evidence; he did not object below, so the appellate court reviewed only for plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Criminal trespass: whether Schils was on the land "without privilege"	State: video and testimony show no permission; victim explicitly told Schils to leave and Schils knowingly remained/postured	Schils: he had express or implied permission to enter and did not unreasonably remain after privilege revoked	Court: affirmed. Victim’s statements were taunts not a grant of privilege; Schils lingered and continued confrontational conduct after being told to leave, so trespass conviction stands
Disorderly conduct: whether Schils’ insults/acts were likely to provoke violence	State: targeted profanity, lunges, and “it’s coming” were fighting words/likely to provoke a violent response	Schils: language and conduct were not fighting words and would not reasonably provoke violence	Court: affirmed. Words directed at the victim plus aggressive lunging and alarm to the victim objectively supported finding conduct likely to provoke violence

State v. Grinstead, 194 Ohio App.3d 755 (sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain‑error doctrine for appellate review)
State v. Hohman, 14 Ohio App.3d 142 (lack of privilege is essential element of trespass)
Warren v. Patrone, 75 Ohio App.3d 595 (context and whether language is targeted inform fighting‑words analysis)
State v. Johnson, 6 Ohio App.3d 56 (objective standard for provocation: whether a reasonable person would be provoked)
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (trial court trier‑of‑fact has primary role in weighing evidence and credibility)