## Facts

- On December 14, 2012, the day of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, P.T., a 15-year-old student at Wilmington High School in Wilmington, Ohio, posted statements on Facebook reacting to the shooting.
- The posts stated, among other things, that “Murder is a good thing,” mocked the fact that children were killed, and said he “would have done this job myself if I could have.”
- Police received multiple reports about the posts from community members, including parents of students who attended school with P.T.
- In an online exchange with another minor (Cory), P.T. responded with a message that included the line: “You’re fucking dead, kiddo.”
- The school principal testified that he viewed the posts as a threat and took steps in response, including notifying administrators and communicating with parents.
- After the posts, some students stayed home from school, and a police officer was stationed at the school for added security.
- The State filed a juvenile complaint alleging P.T. was a delinquent child for committing menacing under Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.22.
- After an adjudicatory (bench) hearing, the juvenile court found P.T. guilty of menacing, adjudicated him delinquent, and placed him on probation (community control).
- P.T. appealed, arguing his statements did not satisfy the menacing statute because he did not threaten to harm a specific person or property and that the statements were protected speech.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported an adjudication for menacing under Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.22 based on P.T.’s social-media posts.
2. Whether punishing P.T.’s posts as menacing violated the First Amendment (and the parallel provision of the Ohio Constitution) because the statements were protected speech rather than unprotected “true threats.”

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth Appellate District, affirmed the juvenile court’s delinquency adjudication for menacing.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to show P.T. knowingly caused others to believe he would cause physical harm.
- The court held the statements, viewed in context, constituted “true threats” and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment or Article I, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.22(A), menacing occurs when an offender knowingly causes another to believe the offender will cause physical harm to the person or the person’s property.
- In a sufficiency review, the court asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Menacing does not require proof that the speaker actually intended to carry out the threatened harm; the statute focuses on knowingly causing the belief of impending harm.
- A “true threat” is not protected speech; the analysis generally turns on how a reasonable person would understand the statement in its setting, not merely on the speaker’s claimed motive or after-the-fact explanations.
- A court may consider timing and surrounding circumstances—such as the contemporaneous Sandy Hook shooting, the content praising mass violence, direct threatening language, and the community reaction—in deciding both statutory proof and whether speech is a true threat.

## Conclusion

In re P.T. upheld a juvenile adjudication for menacing where a student’s Facebook posts on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting praised the killings, suggested he would have committed a similar act, and included direct threatening language; the court found the posts were sufficient to cause others to believe physical harm would occur and were “true threats” outside constitutional free-speech protection.


In re P.T., 995 N.E.2d 279 (2013)