State v. Stutz, 2020 Ohio 6959

Defendant Ginger E. Stutz, a former Dayton police officer, was convicted after a bench trial of one count of aggravated menacing for telling her son on Nov. 9, 2019: “If I had a gun on me right now, I would shoot Rick in the f*ing face.”
The son (Sean) reasonably inferred “Rick” meant Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl; Stutz had a history of obsessing about and contacting Biehl and previously carried a firearm while employed.
Sean, alarmed by Stutz’s erratic behavior, told family friend and Dayton officer Jimmy Howard, who alerted supervisors; officers were assigned to guard Chief Biehl’s house that night.
An officer observed a vehicle matching Stutz’s near Chief Biehl’s house turning away and speeding off late that night.
The trial court denied a Crim.R. 29 motion, found Stutz guilty, imposed a partially suspended jail term (with electronic home monitoring and conditions including mental-health assessment and no firearms), and denied a stay pending appeal.
On appeal Stutz challenged legal sufficiency (arguing her comment was not reasonably calculated to reach the chief) and venue; the Second District affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: did defendant knowingly cause the chief to believe he would be harmed?	Evidence showed Stutz repeatedly referred to “Rick,” believed her son was "working with" Rick, and had close family ties to an officer who was told—so she should have known the threat would probably reach Biehl.	The comment was not reasonably calculated to reach Chief Biehl; no reason to believe her son would convey it to him.	Affirmed: viewing evidence in State's favor a rational trier could find Stutz knew her threat would probably reach Biehl.
Venue: was Miamisburg proper jurisdiction?	Call occurred shortly after leaving a Miamisburg car dealership (CarMax); defendant either was in Miamisburg or in a vehicle that passed through it.	No proof of where defendant was when she placed the call.	Affirmed: record supports a reasonable inference the call originated in or passed through Miamisburg, so venue was proper.
Legal scope: do conditional threats qualify as aggravated menacing?	Yes; conditional threats can constitute menacing.	(Defendant conceded this point.)	Court follows precedent that conditional threats may violate aggravated-menacing statute.

State v. Collie, 108 Ohio App.3d 580 (1st Dist. 1996) (conditional threats can constitute aggravated menacing)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Hawn, 138 Ohio App.3d 449 (2d Dist. 2000) (framing a sufficiency challenge as alleging inadequate evidence on an element)
Fairfield v. McRoberts, 100 Ohio App.3d 476 (12th Dist. 1995) (venue in menacing cases may be where threat was made or heard)