•. Ff^^^
II^T THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. CASE NO 13-1174
DAVID L. LABER,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ON APPEAL FROM 'I'HE
LAWRENCE COUNTY
COURT OF APPEALS,
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
CASE NO. 12-CA-24
APPELLEE, STATE OF OHIO'S, MEMORANDUM CONTRA IN SUPPORT OF
JURISDICTION
BRIGHAM M. ANDERSON, #0078174
LAWRENCE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
W. MACK ANDERSON, #0020454
ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
LA)4'RENCE COU'NTY COURT HOUSE
ONE VE'I'ERAN'S SQUARE
IRONTON, OH 45638
PI-IONE: (740) 533-4360
FAX: (740) 533-4387
COUNSEL FOR STATE OF OHIO
OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER
PETER GALYARDT, #0085439
ASSISTANT STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
250 EAST BROAD STREET, SUI'I'E 1400
COLUMBUS, OH 43215
PHONE: (614) 466-5394
FAX: (614) 752-5167
COUNSEL FOR DAVID L. LABER
.. <?1l
j i C'
, . '•,:
;
^ • ^
. ai"^. ...
^.^^F.i
3- 'r '^^`^y
r ^T
a
rti y r
Y'' s r
i §d ^ ^" 6 § 6'4
✓
o
;t. , ; ^' ia•.%
T,A.BLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
Explanation of Why This Case Is Not One of Great General Interest
Nor Involves a Substantial Constitutional Question ............................................................ 1-2
Statement of the Case and Facts .:.............. ...... ..... ... ...... .... ................,... 2
Arguments Contra to Proposition of Law ..................................................................... .... 2-3
Conclusion ................. .................... . ... . .... .............. ......... .. ................. .. ........... 3 -4
Proof of Service .................................................................................................................... 4
i
INTRODUCTION
Liebert Corporation, a subsidiary of Emerson Electric, operates a manufacturing plant
manufacturing comnxercial. air conditioning units in the city of Ironton, Ohio. The DefendantAppellant, David L. Laber, was an employee of said facility. On August 1, 2012, said David L.
Laber indicated at the plant to a coworker, Linda Lawless, in vivid detail, how he would place
bombs in the plant, specifically targeting two management officials. Evidence revealed he had
previously had run-ins with these officials.
As a result of these threats, Mr. Laber was inunediately terminated by Liebert and was
charged and convicted of Making Terroristic Threats, in violation of Ohio Revised Code
2909.23(A).
Appellant argues that an expression of thoughts, without more, does not constitute a
terroristic threat under Ohio Revised Code 2909.23. To the contrary, in this case the Appellant
was not simply expressing general thoughts but was giving vivid details regarding two
individuals, Nona Callihan and Emmitt Kiristy, both management officials at Liebert, who would
be the first targets of his acts. Specifically, he mentioned shooting those two individuals. He
also indicated that he would place three bombs in the plant, beginning with the front office
(which housed management officials).
As testified by Ms. Lawless, not only was he making these statements, but he indicated to
Ms. Lawless that he was bipolar and that he had been in prison before but would not tell her why.
Ms. Lawless also testified that when he began making these statements to her at the plant he had
a very strange look on his face, as if staring out into space.
Because Ms. Lawless was so intimidated and upset by the statements of her coworker, she
reported them to management. Management also took the threats seriously, resulting in
immediately contacting corporate security, calling the local police, terminating the Appellant's
employement and warning company employees that the Appellant was no longer permitted on
the property and if anyone saw him there to immediately report it to security. The company also
immediately beefed up security at the plant.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
On August 21, 2012, while at work at Liebert Corporation in Ironton, Ohio, the
Appellant, David L. Laber, stated to coworker Linda Lawless that he had. thought about shooting
people. He went on to indicate that he would start with two management employees, Nona
Callihan and Emmitt Kiristy. He also indicated that he had bombs and that he would place three
of them in the plant beginning at the front office.
He was subsequently indicted by a Lawrence County Grand Jury with making terroristic
threats in violation of Ohio Revised Code 2909.23(A), a felony of the third degree. He stood
trial and was convicted by a jury of his peers and was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary
by the Court. He appealed his conviction to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, which
unanimously upheld that conviction.
ARGUMENT'S CONTRA TO PROPOSITION OF LAW
Proposition of Law
An articulation of mere thoughts is not a terrorist threat under R.C. 2909.23(A).
As Appellant indicates, the Ohio General Assen-ibly enacted R.C. 2909.23 to criminalize
threats made by someone who has a purpose to intimidate or coerce. (emphasis added) The
General Assembly was not, by this section, targeting acts or plans but was targeting threats. The
evidence clearly shows that very specific details were given by the Appellant, coupled with the
2
fact that he indicated that he was bipolar and had been in prison, resulting in the coworker being
intimidated to the point that she reported the threats to mailagement.
As pointed out in Appellee's brief to the Court of Appeals, when one makes such threats
to a coworker, specifically naming people they would shoot, how many bombs he had, and places
where they would be placed, one must reasonably expect that the person to whom they are
making such threats may very well report those threats to others for their safety. Under the
circumstances, it wuld have been irresponsible of the coworker, Linda Lawless, not to report
these threats to management.
I'urther, as indicated above, management took the threats very seriously, as evidenced by
the actions they immediately took. Likewise, the two individuals specifically targeted by the
Appellant testified to the jury that they took the threats extremely seriously. Ms. Callihan
testified that she personally had her husband take her to work after the tlueats were made and that
they kept all their doors and windows shut and locked at their home. She further testified that
she enrolled in the VINE Program so that she would know if Mr. Laber was released from
custody. Emmitt Kiristy testified that he personally told his wife and children about the threats
and to make sure not to answer the door for any strangers at their home and that he made himself
more aware of his surroundings as he was going to and from the plant. The evidence clearly
showed that there was a reasonable expectation of fear on the part of these two management
employees of Liebert, as well as the company as a whole. 'I'he actions taken by the company as a
result of the threats is stated herein above.
CONCLUSION
While Appellee agrees that one may not criminally be punished for their thoughts, when
those thoughts are articulated to another verbally or in writing, they may become a threat, which
the criminal law may rightfully punish. If Osama Bin Laden had made a statement to a person
who subsequently reported it to the authorities that he had bombs and was going to blow up
buildings and that lle would start with the World Trade Center, he could have certainly been
charged with a violation of Ohio Revised Code 2923.02(A), if those statements were made in the
State of Ohio. In the present case, the Appellant, after stating that he was going to shoot two
individuals, indicated that he had bombs and that he would like to place them in the Liebert plant
and that he would begin with the front office.
He was properly charged and convicted of Making Terroristic Threats in violation of
Ohio Revised Code 2923.02(A).
Respectfully submitted,
Brigham M. Anderson, #0078174
Prosecuting Attorney
^• ^^ ^^ _
W. Mack An erson, #0020454
Assistant Procuting Attorney
Lawrence County Court House
Ironton, Ohio 45638
Phone: 740-533-4360 / Fax: 740-533-4387
PROOF OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing Memorandum Contra was served upon Peter Galvardt, Assistant
State Public Defender, Attorney for Appellant, 250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus,
^
Ohio 43215, on this ecr '"'day of August, 2013, by regular US mail.
Brigham M. Anderson, 40078174
Prosecuting Attorney
W. Mack Anderson, #0020454
Assistant Pro^ecuting Attorney
Lawence County Court House
Ironton, Ohio 45638
Phone: 740-533-4360 / Fax: 740-533-4387
4