State v. CrawlState v. Crawl
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2025-OHIO-2799
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 29859, 2024-Ohio-752.
SHANAHAN, J., authored the opinion of the court, which KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, BRUNNER, DETERS, and HAWKINS, JJ., joined.
{¶ 1} A man convicted of a menacing-by-stalking offense against an elementary-school classmate more than a decade after they had been in school together asks us to reverse his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that his actions were knowingly made to cause the victim to feel threatened with physical harm or to cause her mental distress. The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court‘s judgment, finding that posting inappropriate comments on the victim‘s social-media account and showing up at the victim‘s front door uninvited and turning the doorknob of that door, together with the victim‘s testimony of the effect these interactions had on her, was sufficient to support the man‘s menacing-by-stalking conviction. 2024-Ohio-752, ¶ 23-24, 26-27 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 2} When viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the actions of the man are sufficient to support his menacing-by-stalking conviction. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Second District.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 3} Appellant, Dorian Crawl, went to elementary school with A.P. They were never friends. They were not even acquaintances. They never spoke with each other. In May 2022, A.P. was celebrating her 29th birthday. She posted a photo on her Instagram account and wrote, “29, be great to me.” Crawl commented on A.P.‘s birthday post, first by sending a “sad emoji” and then by writing, “Happy Birthday, baby girl. I love you. Hope we can see each other sometime soon.” A.P. did not respond to Crawl. Six days later, A.P. posted a video on her Instagram account. Crawl commented on that post, writing: “Where is this, [A.P.]? Is this your house, boo?”
{¶ 4} Less than a month later, Crawl appeared at the front door of A.P.‘s apartment in West Carrollton. Crawl knocked on the door, and A.P. went to the door, looked through the peephole, and saw him. She asked who was there, and
{¶ 5} During his investigation of the incident, the officer contacted Crawl. Crawl told the officer that he went to school with A.P. during their teenage years but that they were not friends and never talked to each other at school. According to the officer, Crawl believed that there was potential for a relationship with A.P. and he was attempting to contact A.P. in order to “follow up on that.” The officer testified that Crawl “felt as though there was more and he was looking into that, more of a relationship that they could have had.” The officer noted that Crawl wanted to find out why A.P. had not asked him to prom and why they had not been in a relationship. Crawl admitted to the officer that he had found A.P.‘s address online, and he stated that he did not like how A.P. had responded to him. Even after the officer confronted Crawl about appearing at A.P.‘s apartment uninvited, Crawl sent messages to A.P. on social media.
{¶ 6} A.P. testified that the incident caused her significant anxiety and prompted her to install cameras around her apartment, ensure that she was on her phone with someone when she came home late at night with her daughter, have her boyfriend stay over more often because she was uncomfortable staying alone at home, and look for another place to live in the hope of moving immediately. She testified that when she saw Crawl at the courthouse on the day of trial, she had to immediately go to the bathroom. She further stated that while testifying, she felt like she was going to throw up and her heart was pumping out of her chest.
{¶ 8} Crawl appealed to this court, and we accepted the appeal to consider his first proposition of law:
The simple act of making non-threatening comments to an individual‘s public social media platforms posts, when there is no relationship between the individuals, and the person who posts on social media takes no action to put the commentor on notice that she finds the comments offensive, unwanted, or considered them threatening, is insufficient to support a finding that the comments were knowingly made to cause the poster on [the] social media platform to feel threatened with harm or to cause her mental anguish to support a conviction of stalking under
R.C. 2903.211(A)(1) .
See 2024-Ohio-2373.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 9} A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed de novo. State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-269, ¶ 5, citing State v. Dent, 2020-Ohio-6670, ¶ 15. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, the relevant inquiry for the appellate court is “whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 1997-Ohio-355, ¶ 49, fn. 4. A trial court‘s verdict should stand on appeal unless reasonable minds could not reach the trier of fact‘s conclusion. See State v. Montgomery, 2016-Ohio-5487, ¶ 74. In this case, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the menacing-by-stalking offense were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
B. Ohio‘s menacing-by-stalking statute
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} “Pattern of conduct” means “two or more actions or incidents closely related in time.”
{¶ 12} “A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person‘s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature.”
{¶ 13} “Mental distress” is defined as “[a]ny mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity” or “[a]ny mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services, whether or not” such services were requested or received.
C. Application of the menacing-by-stalking statute to Crawl‘s case
1. A.P.‘s Mental Distress
{¶ 14} The court of appeals determined that Crawl‘s actions caused A.P. mental distress. 2024-Ohio-752 at ¶ 24 (2d Dist.). We agree. A.P.‘s mental distress was established through her testimony, her actions following the incident at her apartment, and the police officer‘s testimony of his observations of A.P. when he first made contact with her. Further, A.P.‘s testimony is clear that Crawl‘s actions caused A.P. to fear for her safety and for the safety of her daughter.
2. Crawl‘s Pattern of Conduct
{¶ 15} In determining what constitutes a “pattern of conduct,” the court must consider all actions or incidents, even if some of them, when viewed in isolation, do not seem threatening. See State v. Gonzalez, 2022-Ohio-2870, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.); Cable v. McHenry, 2019-Ohio-4293, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.). The actions or incidents must be closely related in time.
3. Crawl Acted Knowingly
{¶ 17} Again, regarding “knowingly,” “[a] person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person‘s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature.”
{¶ 18} Crawl‘s conduct meets the “knowingly” standard under
{¶ 19} Finally, A.P. was not required to block Crawl on social media or affirmatively reject his advances. While these actions may allow a factfinder to determine that the offender acted knowingly, see State v. Bone, 2006-Ohio-3809, ¶ 34 (10th Dist.); Lazor v. Souders, 2024-Ohio-774, ¶ 54-56 (12th Dist.), Crawl‘s position would require victims to engage with their stalkers, who, in some cases, may be dangerous. We will not adopt such a rule.
{¶ 20} Crawl asks this court to conclude that the act of making nonthreatening comments to a person‘s posts on a public social-media platform, when there is no relationship between the poster and the commentor, and the person who posts on social media takes no action to put the commentor on notice that she finds the comments offensive, unwanted, or threatening, is insufficient to support a finding that the comments were knowingly made to cause the poster on the social media platform to feel threatened with physical harm or to cause the poster mental distress to support a conviction of menacing by stalking under
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 21} Crawl suggests that the act of making nonthreatening comments to a person‘s posts on a public social-media platform is insufficient to support a finding that the comments were knowingly made to cause the poster to feel threatened with
Judgment affirmed.
Smith, Meier & Webb, L.P.A., Mark D. Webb, and Chase T. Kirby, for appellee.
Theresa G. Haire, Montgomery County Public Defender, and Arvin S. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, and Jana M. Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost.