“No Prior Relationship, No Explicit Threat, Still Stalking” – State v. Crawl Creates a Clear Rule that a Mixed Pattern of Online Harassment and a Single Physical Intrusion Can Sustain a Menacing-by-Stalking Conviction under R.C. 2903.211

Introduction

In State v. Crawl, 2025-Ohio-2799, the Supreme Court of Ohio confronted a factual pattern that has become increasingly common in the social-media era: seemingly innocuous online messages escalate into real-world fear when an offender crosses the digital threshold and appears, uninvited, at a victim’s door. The appellant, Dorian Crawl, argued that his conviction for menacing by stalking should be reversed because (1) his social-media comments were not overtly threatening, (2) the victim never blocked or told him to stop, and (3) he and the victim had no relationship at all. The Court unanimously rejected these arguments and affirmed that a “pattern of conduct” can be formed by a combination of electronic contacts and a single physical approach, even without threats, a prior relationship, or a victim’s express objection.

This commentary unpacks the judgment, its reasoning, and its far-reaching implications for Ohio stalking jurisprudence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court affirmed both the municipal court’s conviction and the Second District’s decision. Key holdings include:

• When evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, Crawl’s social-media comments, physical visit, and continued messaging constitute sufficient evidence of (a) a “pattern of conduct”, (b) the victim’s “mental distress”, and (c) the offender’s knowing mental state.
• Neither explicit threats nor a prior relationship are required elements of R.C. 2903.211(A)(1).
• A victim is not obligated to block or otherwise engage with a stalker to provide “notice” before criminal liability can attach.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) – bedrock rule for sufficiency review; the Court relied on Jenks’ “any rational trier of fact” standard.
• State v. Smith, 126 Ohio App.3d 193 (7th Dist. 1998) – established that non-verbal actions (e.g., following, staring) can satisfy stalking; Crawl extends this logic to online messages combined with one physical act.
• State v. Spaulding, 2016-Ohio-8126 – highlighted how a prior relationship can fortify the inference of knowing conduct; Crawl clarifies that such a relationship is helpful but not essential.
• Cable v. McHenry, 2019-Ohio-4293 & State v. Gonzalez, 2022-Ohio-2870 – confirmed courts may aggregate seemingly minor incidents to find a “pattern”; Crawl applies that aggregation to mixed online/offline conduct.
• Bone v. State, 2006-Ohio-3809 and Lazor v. Souders, 2024-Ohio-774 – noted that recipient blocking can be evidence of knowledge; Crawl explicitly declines to impose a duty on victims to block before liability attaches.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Pattern of Conduct

R.C. 2903.211(D)(1) requires “two or more actions … closely related in time.” The Court treated Crawl’s conduct as a three-part sequence:

1. Instagram comments expressing unwelcome familiarity.
2. Uninvited physical arrival at the victim’s apartment and attempt to open the door.
3. Additional social-media messages after police intervention.

Collectively, these satisfy the statutory minimum; the Court emphasized that explicit threats are unnecessary.

b. Knowledge Requirement

Knowledge under R.C. 2901.22(B) focuses on foreseeability. The Court inferred knowledge from surrounding facts:

• Crawl searched for and obtained the victim’s home address.
• He physically manipulated the doorknob, an act inherently suggestive of possible entry.
• He persisted even after a police warning.

Thus, a rational fact-finder could conclude Crawl was aware his conduct was likely to cause distress.

c. Mental Distress

The victim’s testimony of anxiety, safety precautions (cameras, boyfriend’s presence, relocation efforts), and the responding officer’s observations provided ample evidence of “temporary substantial incapacity” under R.C. 2903.211(D)(2). No expert testimony was required, consistent with Szloh and similar cases.

3. Impact of the Decision

State v. Crawl decisively answers several questions left open in prior case law:

• Digital-Physical Nexus: Confirms that one physical act can combine with online communications to form the requisite pattern.
• No “Prior Relationship” Safe Harbor: Offenders cannot argue that an absence of prior interaction shields them from stalking liability.
• No “Victim Notice” Requirement: Victims are not forced to block or rebuke an online harasser to perfect criminal liability.
• Prosecutorial Guidance: Prosecutors may charge even in early stages of escalating behavior, potentially preventing violence.
• Law-Enforcement Training: Officers responding to first-time physical contacts can treat prior online messages as evidence of stalking.

Beyond Ohio, the decision may be cited in other jurisdictions grappling with blended online/offline stalking patterns.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Pattern of Conduct

At least two related acts. They can be words, messages, appearances, or gestures. They must occur close enough in time to be viewed as part of the same course of behavior.

Knowingly

The offender does not need to want the harmful result; it is enough that he or she is aware it is likely to happen.

Mental Distress

More than trivial annoyance. Includes significant anxiety or fear that changes the victim’s daily routine, even if the victim never sees a doctor.

Explicit Threat

A direct promise of harm (“I’m going to hurt you”). The Court reiterated that stalking does not require such a threat.

Conclusion

State v. Crawl cements an important twenty-first-century principle: a stalker cannot hide behind the seeming harmlessness of heartfelt emojis or public Instagram posts, nor behind the formalistic lack of a prior relationship, nor behind the victim’s silence. Once online overtures merge with an uninvited physical act that reasonably causes fear, the law may intervene. By clarifying that Ohio’s menacing-by-stalking statute captures this digital-physical continuum, the Supreme Court equips courts, prosecutors, victims, and law-enforcement with a clear roadmap for future cases. The decision also stands as a cautionary tale: the moment a digital pursuit turns into a doorstep appearance, criminal liability is no longer a virtual possibility—it is very real.