Sufficient Evidence

A menacing by stalking conviction was affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court

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?”

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 Crawl responded, “It’s Dorian. I’m [A.P.’s] friend. I’m here to see her.” Crawl then turned the doorknob. A.P. turned the deadbolt to lock the door and ran to the back of her apartment where her then nine-year-old daughter was located. Frightened, A.P. put her daughter in a closet and called the West Carrollton police. When a police officer arrived, Crawl was no longer at the scene. At trial, the officer testified that when he first made contact with A.P., she was visibly upset, crying, and nervous, as if something significant had happened to her.

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.

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.

Sufficient evidence

In this case, Crawl’s actions constituted a “pattern of conduct” under R.C. 2903.211(D)(1). His inappropriate social-media messages, including professing his love for A.P. and asking if a video showed A.P.’s home, followed closely in time by him showing up uninvited at A.P.’s apartment and attempting to enter the apartment by turning the doorknob, together with continuing to message A.P. after being confronted by a police officer about appearing at A.P.’s apartment uninvited, were sufficient to establish two or more actions closely related in time and demonstrated a pattern of conduct that caused A.P. mental distress for her and her daughter. After his discussion with the officer, Crawl was unquestionably on notice that A.P. did not want to be contacted by him…

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 R.C. 2903.211(A)(1). He asks us to reach this conclusion on a scenario not before us. Crawl’s conduct far exceeded the behavior set forth in his proposition of law by him sending inappropriate messages on social media, showing up at the victim’s home uninvited, and attempting to gain access to her home. There was sufficient evidence to support Crawl’s menacing-by-stalking conviction.

(Mike Frisch)