In the court case, State v. Szloh (2010), Bryan Szloh was sent to court following a menacing by stalking charge. Mrs. and Mr. Szloh’s divorce was finalized in August of 2008. At this time Mrs. Szloh decide to live at her mother’s house. In the early summer of 2009, Mrs. Szloh and her mother reported Mr. Szloh outside of their residence three different times. Mr. Szloh was verbally warned by the police to stay away from the property and cut off all communication with his ex-wife. However, Mr. Szloh returned a third time. This time he was arrested for three separate accounts of menacing by stalking, which is the act committed. There is no criminal case without an act that is declared illegal. Due to his act and intent to cause distress to Mrs. Szloh and her mother, the case led to a trial.
The state of Ohio requires the following elements to be proven; (1) pattern of conduct, (2) knowingly cause mental distress to another or family members, (3) perceived threat of physical harm to another or family members. In this case, Mr. Szloh established a pattern of conduct by going to his ex-wife’s residence more than two times. He also…show more content… Szloh believed that the court did not prove that his actions caused mental distress or a physical threat to Mrs. Szloh or her mother. Without proving this element, one cannot be found guilty of menacing by stalking. The court upheld their decision. In this case, the prosecutors had to follow the criminal law in Ohio. If the case had involved the stalking of a federal agent, then the federal criminal law would be responsible for prosecuting Mr. Szloh. This is due to the fact that the federal law states that the offender must “travel in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country” (Stalking , Legal Information Institute §
