State v. Oliver

2025 Ohio 4824

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: C-240702
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Oliver, 2025-Ohio-4824.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240702 TRIAL NO. 24/CRB/6370 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY TASHIA OLIVER, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 10/22/2025 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Oliver, 2025-Ohio-4824.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240702 TRIAL NO. 24/CRB/6370 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : OPINION TASHIA OLIVER, :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 22, 2025

Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Victoria L. Lowry, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Joshua A. Thompson, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

MOORE, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Tashia Oliver appeals her conviction for

aggravated menacing. There is no dispute that, on April 17, 2024, Oliver drove her

truck past the car of the victim, M.B., and cut him off at the intersection of Mitchell

Avenue and Vine Street. This began a verbal exchange between the parties as they

continued to drive through the intersection and led to the collision of their vehicles.

Oliver was charged with aggravated menacing after M.B. alleged that Oliver had

pointed a gun at him, threatening to harm him and his child, who was in the back seat

of the car.

{¶2} On appeal, Oliver argues that her conviction is contrary to the manifest

weight of the evidence based on the inconsistencies between the testimonies of the

State’s witnesses. She further argues that it is implausible that she pointed her gun at

M.B. while simultaneously driving her truck.

{¶3} The question before this court is whether the trial court lost its way and

created a manifest miscarriage of justice by finding Oliver guilty of aggravated

menacing. We hold that the trial court did not lose its way, and we affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶4} Oliver was charged with aggravated menacing, a first-degree

misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A). The matter proceeded to a bench trial

on October 24, 2024.

M.B.’s Testimony

{¶5} M.B. testified that he told Oliver to watch how she was driving because

his child was sitting in the back seat of his car, and Oliver responded, “F*** your baby.”

M.B. testified that, after he admonished Oliver for the way she was driving, she began

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

to ram the side of his car with her truck and “dragged [his] car” about 10 to 15 feet. He

stated that Oliver rammed his car two times, which caused him to fear that Oliver

would cause him to “plow into one of [the] parked cars” on the other side of him and

injure his child in the back seat. M.B. further explained that the tire on Oliver’s front

passenger side was “right next to [his] face” during this encounter, as his window was

rolled down. M.B. testified that he believed that Oliver was attempting to run his car

off the road, so he attempted to “drive off” out of fear for his and his child’s safety.

{¶6} M.B. recalled that Oliver stopped her truck, which allowed him to get

his car past “a small gap between the front end of her car and some parked cars without

touching them.” He explained that he started to drive away out of concern that Oliver

would continue to hit his car. He testified that he was looking for somewhere he could

pull over to check on his child when he noticed Oliver was “tailgating” him, so he had

his girlfriend, who was also a passenger, call 911.

{¶7} M.B. testified that he was at a stop sign on Dana Avenue with a vehicle

in front of him and Oliver’s vehicle ahead of him and “diagonal to [his] passenger side”

when Oliver “look[ed] back out of her window hanging out with a gun and was pointing

it at [him].” M.B. testified that Oliver said that she “will kill all of [them] right now,”

and he thought she was going to shoot them.

{¶8} M.B. explained that Oliver had been in front of him right after his

girlfriend called 911, but then Oliver got behind him again and followed him down

Dana Avenue into Norwood. M.B. testified that when he was flagging down police that

he saw at Dana Avenue and Montgomery Road, Oliver made a U-turn and drove away.

Oliver’s Testimony

{¶9} Oliver testified that, after she cut M.B. off, she thought she heard him

say, “B**** be careful,” to which she responded, “You are a b****.” Oliver asserted that

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

M.B. caused the collision by ramming his car into her truck. She stated that she “must

have taken [her] foot off the brake” causing her truck and M.B.’s car to separate, and

M.B.’s car “scrape[d] past” her. Oliver testified that M.B. “took off” once their vehicles

separated, so she followed him to obtain his license plate number.

{¶10} Oliver also called 911. The recording was played in open court. Oliver

identified her voice on the recording yelling at M.B. that, among other things, “I wish

I had this mother****** loaded,” referring to the gun she was holding. Oliver testified

that this statement was directed at M.B. Oliver explained that she had held a

concealed-carry license for 30 years, and kept her gun unloaded in the middle console

of her truck, with the clip stored “in the front.” She testified that she did not point her

gun at anyone, but M.B. must have seen it because she was holding the gun in the same

hand that she was using to steer the truck.

{¶11} The 911 operator was heard instructing Oliver to stay at the intersection

at Clinton Springs and Reading Road, and to activate the flashers on her truck so the

police could locate her. Oliver told the 911 operator that M.B. was proceeding onto

Dana Avenue and that she was still following him. Oliver also told the 911 operator

that she wanted the police to meet her at the United Dairy Farmers because her and

M.B.’s vehicles were “at the top of Montgomery [Road] and Dana [Avenue].”

{¶12} The 911 operator advised Oliver to stop following M.B. and instead stay

at the United Dairy Farmers until police arrived. Oliver testified that she waited for

the police at the United Dairy Farmers on Montgomery Road but, after seeing two

police cars pass her and believing the police were not coming to meet her, drove home.

{¶13} On cross-examination, Oliver conceded that she did not follow the 911

operator’s repeated instructions to (1) remain at the intersection at Clinton Springs

and Reading Road, then (2) to wait for the police at the United Dairy Farmers on

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Montgomery Road, and (3) not to follow M.B.

{¶14} Oliver testified that she turned herself in and spoke with police about

the incident after discovering there was a warrant for her arrest.

K.M.’s Testimony

{¶15} K.M. testified that she was at the stop light at Mitchell Avenue and

Clinton Springs Avenue when she saw Oliver’s truck blocking M.B.’s car and heard

them yelling at each other. She explained that M.B. attempted to drive away when

Oliver “just start[ed] pow, pow, hitting [M.B.’s] car.” K.M. testified that, although her

light turned red, she “still went up the street” and saw “like plastic and tires . . . because

[Oliver’s] car [wa]s really like rubbing, like hitting” M.B.’s car, and that Oliver could

have run M.B. off the road. K.M. described M.B.’s car as “trying to get away” while

Oliver was “slamming” her truck into M.B.’s car three or four times. K.M. stated that

she also saw Oliver throw something out of her truck at M.B.’s car.

{¶16} K.M. recalled that she could not see them for about 30 seconds because

“they went around a curve.” She stated that she continued to follow the vehicles into

Norwood until Oliver made a U-turn and drove away. K.M. testified that she pulled

her car up next to M.B.’s and heard a baby crying, asked M.B. if they were okay, then

pulled her car into the parking lot where M.B. parked his car.

Oliver is found guilty of aggravated menacing.

{¶17} The trial court found that Oliver was holding a gun and threatened to

shoot M.B. and his child. The court stated that it found M.B.’s testimony “more

credible” based on K.M.’s testimony that Oliver rammed her truck into M.B.’s car and

threw something at it, causing K.M. to follow them out of concern for M.B.’s safety. In

response to Oliver’s comment that K.M. never testified that Oliver pointed the gun at

M.B., the court stated, “Driving with a gun on a steering wheel and saying, I wish this

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

thing was loaded, is threatening.”

{¶18} The trial court found Oliver guilty as charged. The court ordered Oliver

to stay away from M.B. and imposed $100 in costs and $42 in fees associated with the

issuance of subpoenas.

{¶19} This appeal followed.

II. Analysis

{¶20} Oliver challenges the credibility of M.B.’s testimony, arguing that he

caused the accident that gave rise to this incident, she never said to M.B., “F*** your

baby,” and M.B. could not remember the streets where the incident occurred. She

asserts that she never pointed her gun at M.B. and challenges the credibility of M.B.’s

testimony that she was hanging out of the window while pointing the gun at him.

Oliver also challenges K.M.’s identification of Oliver, whether she witnessed Oliver

throwing an item out of her vehicle, and that K.M. did not testify to seeing Oliver with

a gun.

{¶21} When applying the manifest-weight standard of review, an appellate

court reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences,

considers the credibility of witnesses, and then determines whether, in resolving

conflicts in the evidence, the fact finder clearly lost its way and created such a manifest

miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed. State v. Champion, 2021-

Ohio-4002, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).

{¶22} A manifest-weight challenge concerns the plaintiff’s burden of

persuasion. State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-2351, ¶ 18 (1st Dist.). The fact finder is in the

best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. The fact finder is free to

believe some, all, or none of any witnesses’ testimony. State v. Ridley, 2022-Ohio-

2561, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.). We, therefore, afford substantial deference to the fact finder’s

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

credibility determinations. Brown at ¶ 18.

{¶23} A conviction is not against the manifest weight simply because the fact

finder believed the prosecution’s witnesses. Id. Nor will a conviction be reversed on

manifest-weight grounds merely because inconsistent evidence was presented at trial.

Ridley at ¶ 25. A conviction may only be reversed under a manifest-weight review in

exceptional cases where the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. Brown at

¶ 18.

Oliver’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶24} R.C. 2903.21(A) provides that the offender shall not knowingly cause a

person to believe that the offender will cause them, or a member of the person’s

immediate family, serious physical harm. The State must show that the victim had a

subjective belief of fear of serious physical harm. State v. Antolini, 2025-Ohio-2060,

¶ 42 (1st Dist.). The State is not required to show that the offender is able, or intended,

to carry out the threat. Id. Evidence of a person’s belief that an offender will cause

serious physical harm can be proven with circumstantial evidence. Id.

{¶25} Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the

same probative value and therefore should be subjected to the same standard of proof.

State v. Robinson, 2023-Ohio-2312, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.). Circumstantial evidence is

sufficient to sustain a conviction if that evidence would convince the average mind of

the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

{¶26} “Brandish” means to “wave or exhibit in a menacing or challenging

manner.” State v. Thomas, 2024-Ohio-5662, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.), quoting State v.

McCrary, 2009-Ohio-4390, ¶ 30 (1st Dist.). Brandishing a firearm has been held to

be enough to support a conviction for aggravated menacing—even if the gun is

unloaded. See State v. Primous, 2020-Ohio-912, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.) (merely displaying a

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

weapon supports a conviction for aggravated menacing where the victim believed the

appellant would cause serious physical harm); Thomas at ¶ 21

(brandishing a firearm is sufficient to justify a conviction for the offense of aggravated

menacing, a misdemeanor of the first degree); State v. Villani, 1980 Ohio App. LEXIS

10509, *4 (1st Dist. Apr. 16, 1980) (conviction for aggravated menacing upheld where

the record showed appellant brandished a shotgun after he was confronted by police,

and his assertion that the shotgun was unloaded was insufficient to dispel the danger

perceived by the officer).

{¶27} Oliver contests the testimony that she was hanging out of the window

while pointing the gun at M.B. and threatening to shoot M.B. and his child. Oliver,

however, concedes she was holding the gun “on the steering wheel,” which made it

visible to M.B.

{¶28} M.B.’s testimony reflects that, after the collision, Oliver was driving

behind M.B., tailgating him, and that when her truck was diagonal to the front

passenger side of his vehicle, “she was looking back out of her window hanging out

with a gun and was pointing it at [him].” The trial court was free to believe this

testimony and conclude that Oliver pointed her gun at M.B.

{¶29} But, even if Oliver did not point her gun at M.B., the court needed only

to find credible evidence that Oliver caused M.B. to believe that she was going to

seriously harm him and his child. M.B. testified that Oliver caused the collision, he saw

her gun and heard her say that she would “kill all of [them] right now,” and that her

actions made him fear for his and his child’s safety. It was the court’s prerogative to

believe this testimony and state in its findings that M.B.’s testimony was credible based

on K.M.’s testimony.

{¶30} Regardless, Oliver conceded that (1) she said she wished the gun that

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

she was holding was loaded, as reflected in the 911 recording, (2) she directed that

statement at M.B., and (3) the gun was visible to M.B. That evidence alone weighs in

favor of a conviction for aggravated menacing. Oliver, therefore, has not shown that

the trial court lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice by convicting

her of aggravated menacing.

{¶31} Accordingly, we overrule Oliver’s sole assignment of error.

III. Conclusion

{¶32} We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

KINSLEY, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., concur.