State v. Yoder
2016 Ohio 7428
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- A.Y. and Aden S. Yoder dated for ~6 months and broke up in January 2014; A.Y. testified she was afraid of Yoder’s anger.
- Between Jan–Sept 2014, A.Y. received ~15–20 voicemails from Yoder (angry, apologetic, cursing) and reported escalating contacts.
- In July 2014 Yoder allegedly told A.Y. he had seen her with a new boyfriend and said he would "walk in" where they were and "won’t guarantee what will happen," which A.Y. interpreted as a threat to hurt or shoot them.
- In September 2014 Yoder followed/pulled in behind A.Y. in a parking lot and attempted to approach her vehicle; A.Y. reported this to police.
- Patrolman Myrda listened to the voicemails, interviewed A.Y., alerted Yoder to stop contacting A.Y., and described A.Y. as fearful and anxious after the incidents.
- Yoder was charged with and convicted (bench trial) of menacing by stalking under R.C. 2903.211(A)(1); court sentenced him to fine, community control, community service, employment requirement, and no-contact order. On appeal, Yoder argued insufficiency and manifest weight; the Ninth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Yoder) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove a "pattern of conduct" under R.C. 2903.211(D)(1) | Voicemails plus the July threat and September parking-lot approach constitute two or more related incidents forming a pattern | Incidents were isolated, not closely related enough to constitute a pattern | Affirmed: the incidents could be viewed as a pattern despite months between them |
| Whether the State proved A.Y. believed Yoder would cause physical harm (alternative to proving mental distress) | A.Y.’s testimony about the July statement and her fear, corroborated by police contact and demeanor, shows she believed he would harm her | No explicit threats and no proof of mental distress; belief not adequately established | Affirmed: A.Y.’s testimony and circumstances supported a reasonable finding she believed Yoder would cause physical harm |
| Whether Yoder acted knowingly — i.e., he should have known his conduct would probably cause A.Y. to fear harm | Yoder watched A.Y., admitted seeing her with boyfriend, made the July statement, and continued contact after police warning — showing awareness his conduct would likely cause fear | Argued lack of evidence that he knew his conduct would cause such fear | Affirmed: evidence permitted inference Yoder knew his conduct would likely cause fear |
| Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | N/A (State prevailed at trial) | Yoder primarily re-argued insufficiency and did not meaningfully challenge credibility or weight | Court declined to perform manifest-weight review because appellant raised only sufficiency arguments; conviction not reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency standard and distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (test for sufficiency: whether any rational trier of fact could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Robinson, 162 Ohio St. 486 (1955) (legal principles concerning sufficiency review)
- Middletown v. Jones, 167 Ohio App.3d 679 (2006) (series of incidents may form a pattern though spread over several years or separated by gaps)