The Ohio Supreme Court was not convinced a 32-year-old Dayton man was unaware his actions — showing up on the doorstep of a woman he only knew as a grade-school classmate after noticing and commenting on an Instagram post — would cause her mental distress.

The state high court determined had Dorian Crawl not intended to frighten the woman, a trier of fact could find that he knew that the woman’s resulting mental distress was the probable consequence of his actions.

“When viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the actions of the man are sufficient to support his menacing-by-stalking conviction,” Justice Megan Shanahan wrote for the 7-0 court.

The decision affirmed the Second District Court of Appeals panel ruling upholding the conviction.

According to case summary, Crawl responded to a couple of public posts on Instagram in early May 2022 after recognizing the posts’ author as someone he knew years earlier from school.

He responded to the woman’s posted birthday photo with a sad-face emoji and “Happy birthday, baby girl. I love you. Hope we can see (each) other sometime soon.”

The woman did not respond to his comment, nor did she take any action to block him from seeing future posts from the social-media account as she continued to post items on her public account, summary continued.

Later that month, she posted a video on her account, and Crawl asked her in the comments if the video was recorded at her home. Again, she neither responded to his post nor blocked him from her account.

The woman indicated at trial that she didn’t think Crawl would harm her, though she described his comments as a “bit creepy,” the summary provided.

Crawl knocked on the door of the woman’s apartment June 27, 2022, while she was at home with her daughter.

The woman said she looked through the peep hole and asked who was at her door, prompting Crawl to identify himself as a friend of the woman and that he was there to see her.

She said Crawl turned the door handle, and she engaged the deadbolt before running to the rear of the apartment where her daughter was and calling the police.

A West Carrollton police officer took the woman’s report, and he contacted Crawl, who explained to the officer that his uncle had given him a ride to the woman’s apartment where he attempted to make contact with her.

He told the officer that he knew the woman from school, but that they were never friends. He also indicated that he felt there could be more of a relationship with her and he was looking into that.

On July 20, 2022, Crawl was charged by complaint with a single count of menacing-by-stalking, a violation of R.C. 2903.211(A)(1) a first-degree misdemeanor.

The statute stipulates in part that “no person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or a family or household member of the other person or cause mental distress to the other person or a family or household member of the other person.”

Crawl pleaded not guilty, and a bench trial took place on June 12, 2023, the summary continued.

The judge overruled both of the man’s motions for acquittal, finding him guilty and sentencing him to 180 days in jail with 18 days suspended and two days of jail credit. Crawl was placed on two years of supervised probation.

Crawl subsequently appealed his conviction to the Second District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction.

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

The court concluded that Crawl’s conduct far exceeded the behavior set forth in his proposition of law and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.