Notes of Decisions
Cited in
518
cases (
228 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St. 3d 403 (Ohio 2006).
State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St. 3d 403 (Ohio 2006).
· cites it 10× “1 The predicate offense for the ethnic-intimidation charge against the appellee was R.C. 2903.21, aggravated menacing. Specifically, the indictment stated that the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury found that the appellee “did violate Section 2903.”
State v. Potts, 2016 Ohio 5555 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “{¶62} In his first assignment of error, Potts argues that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the jury to consider the lesser-related offense of aggravated menacing under R.C. 2903.21. -29- Case No. 5-16-03 {¶63} “In determining whether a particular offense should be…”
State v. Mays, 2024 Ohio 4616 (Ohio 2024).
· cites it 18× “31 of the Revised Code; (b) Two or more violations of section 2903.21, 2903.211, 2903.22, or 2911.”
State v. Mutter (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 2928 (Ohio 2017).
· cites it 4× “In the indictment, the state alleged that the Mutters violated R.C. 2903.21, the aggravated-menacing statute, “by reason of race, color, religion, or natural origin of another person.”
State v. Seibert, 2021 Ohio 3069 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 6× “13(A); (2) aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21; (3) obstructing official business in violation of Section 2921.”
State v. Carson, 2019 Ohio 4550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Carson was convicted of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21. In two assignments of error, Carson argues that (1) his conviction was contrary to law because it was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (2) the trial court erred in its rulings on two…”
State v. Brooks, 542 N.E.2d 636 (Ohio 1989).
· cites it 4× “In my opinion appellee should have been charged under R.C. 2903.21, the aggravated menacing statute, which section proscribes knowingly causing another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to that person.”
State v. Moore (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8288 (Ohio 2016).
· cites it 2× “01(A)(1), and one count of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A). 4 January Term, 2016 {¶ 13} Moore, Bunch, and Bundy were tried together.”
State v. Futrall, 2009 Ohio 5590 (Ohio 2009).
· cites it 3× “01(A)(9) and includes aggravated menacing, R.C. 2903.21. Therefore, Futrall’s conviction for aggravated menacing cannot be sealed.”
State v. Kidder, 513 N.E.2d 311 (Ohio 1987).
· cites it 3× “04(B), R.C. 2903.21. In our per curiam opinion, we began with the three-prong statutory-elements step announced in Wilkins , and noted that only the second prong was at issue, “since involuntary manslaughter by aggravated menacing is obviously of lesser degree than murder and…”
State v. Kendrick, 2023 Ohio 1763 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 6× “In January 2022, the state charged him with aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21, a misdemeanor of the first degree.”
State v. Smith, 2017 Ohio 9283 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “3d 403 , 2006-Ohio-4707 (holding that an indictment stating that the appellee "did violate Section 2903.21 of the Revised Code by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin of another person or group of persons" provided the appellant with adequate notice of the charges…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.21(A) — 352 cases
State v. Moore (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8288 (Ohio 2016).
“01(A)(1), and one count of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A). 4 January Term, 2016 {¶ 13} Moore, Bunch, and Bundy were tried together.”
State v. Seibert, 2021 Ohio 3069 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
“13(A); (2) aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21; (3) obstructing official business in violation of Section 2921.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.21(A)(1)(B) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.21(A)(2) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.21(A)(B) — 6 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.21(B) — 6 cases
State v. Carson, 2019 Ohio 4550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
“Carson was convicted of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21. In two assignments of error, Carson argues that (1) his conviction was contrary to law because it was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (2) the trial court erred in its rulings on two…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.21(C) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.21(D)(1) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.21(D)(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.