This assignment is a case brief of the case Cite as State v. Hoying, 2005-Ohio-1366 which was being heeded In the Court of Appeals for Greene County, Ohio.
Facts: after meeting and working in a restaurant with the victim (Kelly Criswell) on the fateful day of June 2002, Hoying asked Ms. Criswell for a date and was agitated and persistent even after the victim declined. The defendant ensured pestering the plaintiff even after she left work at the restaurant and obtained a civil protection order against the Hoying in February 2003. Between August 15, 2003, and September 7, 2003, Ms. Criswell received 105 e-mails from Hoying and this is in violation of the protection order (Cite as State v. Hoying). Hoying fully acknowledging the violation of writing to the victim, which is in violation of the civil protection order asked Ms. Criswell to drop the charges.
In this e-ma,is Hoying threatens to post the victim’s photo on the internet submitted as state exhibit 11 dated August 16, 2003. On the same date Hoying violated code number eight of the civil protection order by claiming of used three boxes of ammo to shoot clay birds and he was going to do so for a long time this was submitted as the state exhibit 14. On the same date in exhibit 18, Hoying alleges the demand of meeting with Ms. Criswell prior to this he would accustom her in her workplace. On the same day, Hoying in exhibit 20 persisted he will continue to send emails until the victims gives in to his demands. In exhibit 27 dating 17, 2003, Hoying made a significant threat to the victim, demanding that he will take away her freedom so she feels the sting, on the same day on exhibit 29 threatened again to accost the victim in her place of work; this is also reiterated in e-mail exhibit 31 on August 17, 2003. Ms. Criswell after the recipient of this email filed charges in Xenia Municipal Court on Hoying violation of the civil protection order. Hoying did acknowledge this for he was served with the order on August 28, 2003, falling as exhibit 65. In exhibit 71 dated August 30, 2003 hoying threaten Ms. Criswell and her father, prompting her to change her residence, number plates, and occupation (Cite as State v. Hoying).
Statue: the sate of Ohio under the essential element of menacing by stalking found in R.C 5,2903.211, states that no person engaging in a pattern of conduct shall make the other person believe the offender is going to cause physical harm or cause distress on the other person (Cite as State v. Hoying). Any person found violating this section is guilty of menacing by stalking
Holding: Ohio stature law under menacing by stalking under section 2903.213 or 2903.214 subject of protection order of the revised code states menacing by stalking is a felony of fourth-degree if, in due time of the commission of the felony, the offender is subjected to a protection order then the protected person is the victim of the offense or the other person.
Reasoning: in the case of the second assignment error Hoying argues that insufficient evidence in his conviction for intimidating the victim in violation of R.C. 2921.04 lacked evidence. However, under 2921.40 (B), the intimidation elements are clearly stated in this section as no knowing person shall unlawfully and forcefully threaten to cause harm to any another person or property. This shall also not try to intimidate, hinder or influence the crime victim involved in prosecution or filing of criminal allegations by witness or attorney in this proceeding or criminal action, any involvement shall therefore discharge of the duties of the witness or the attorney in the criminal action or proceeding involvement shall discharge of duties of the witness or attorney (Cite as State v. Hoying). In case4 Hoying was unwilling to cooperate and violated the protection order twice and prompted the authority to come take affirmative action for he was not showing up in court.
Rule: the e-mail exhibits are enough to show that the defendant had wanted to cause physical harm to the plaintiff and also her father. This exhibits shows how the plaintiff did suffer mental distress because she had to constantly allocate to avoid any confrontations with the defendant who swore to take away her freedom denoting that he could as well kill her so that she feel the sting that he had inflicted upon himself with infatuation and lusting over the victim.
Dissenting: Hoying three assignment errors are aborted by the court as they didn’t have merit. He was served with the protective order and knowingly continued to intimidate the victim against the R.C. 2921.04 issuing more provocative email and forcing the victim to drop the charges so as to save her life and that of her father.
Concurring: Judges Fain, J., and Young, J. concurs and the jury in the court of Common Pleas found the defendant Theodore Hoying guilty for a fourth degree of menacing by stalking under R.C. 2929.14 and was sentenced to a total of 6 1/2 years in prison (Cite as State v. Hoying). To this the Defendant appealed. The Ohio Court of appeals affirmed.
References
Cite as State v. Hoying, 2005-Ohio-1366. Web.