An Ohio appeals court considered the intent of text and social media messages from a former Amazon employee to a company security manager.

An Ohio appeals court considered the intent of text and social media messages from a former Amazon employee to a company security manager.

A former employee’s convictions for threats to an Amazon security manager in text and Instagram messages and by phone are upheld because a jury found the employee intended to threaten, abuse, or harass the manager, the Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled last week.

In the unanimous ruling, the appeals court also rejected employee Clifford Echols’ argument that the comments were protected by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The Fifth District concluded threats that intimidate or cause the recipient fear or apprehension don’t fall under First Amendment protections. The Fifth District decision upheld Echols’ April 2023 convictions for telecommunications harassment and menacing by stalking.

Over the course of a week in May 2022, David Mosser, a security program manager at Amazon, received several threatening communications. They included a phone call in which the caller, who identified himself as Echols, threatened to beat Mosser, and a series of texts from the same number threatening that someone was going to die. Echols had been employed by the Amazon facility in Etna, Ohio, and Mosser investigated him once for workplace violence.

Mosser also received threatening messages and posts on Instagram. One implied Amazon owed Echols money and Mosser was involved in withholding it. The message stated, “[I]f you don’t get my money I’m working on sending you and your friends to prison how do you think your family and peers are going to react when they find out what you did” followed by comments including expletives, and ending with “Get my money.”

Phone, Text, and Social Media Posts Threaten Manager
Mosser’s job duties included making employee identification badges. He never met Echols, but he knew what Echols looked like from creating badges. Echols’ employment was terminated, and Mosser investigated Echols for workplace violence that occurred after the termination. Mosser also testified for the state in an earlier criminal case against Echols. The case was eventually dismissed .

After the threatening phone call from a person saying he was Echols, Mosser received texts from the same number including one that listed Mosser’s last home address. The texts, which often lacked punctuation, also communicated that Amazon and Mosser owed the texter money for violating his rights and included a screenshot of a DVD labeled “Jury Trial” with an April 2021 date. The screenshot was from an Instagram account with a profile picture of Echols. On Mosser’s Instagram hobby page, he received postings such as “were watching better do the rite thing.”

Mosser reported the communications to his Amazon supervisor, who contacted the Licking County Sheriff’s Office. Mosser received additional messages on Instagram. During this time, his account also received posts threatening the deputies connected to Echols’ 2021 dismissed case and claiming that Mosser lied at Echols’ earlier trial. Mosser obtained a civil protection order against Echols and bought firearms for protection.

Echols was charged with four counts of telecommunications harassment and one count of menacing by stalking. At a jury trial in Licking County Municipal Court, Echols denied telephoning and texting Mosser. Echols also said many people had access to his Instagram accounts and knew about his claims against Amazon. He testified he didn’t intend to threaten Mosser and just wanted to sue Mosser, Amazon, and the state. He said if Mosser took things out of context because of the aggressive language, he apologized.

The jury found Echols guilty on all counts, and the court sentenced him to 180 days in jail. Echols appealed to the Fifth District.

Appeals Court Analyzes Claims
Echols argued to the appeals court that the state didn’t prove he sent the messages intending to abuse, threaten, or harass Mosser, whom he didn’t know. Echols also maintained that the Instagram communications discussed a financial dispute between him and Amazon, the posts were public and not directed at Mosser, and any offensive language was protected by the First Amendment. 

Writing for the Fifth District, Judge William B. Hoffman explained that the appeals court had to determine whether a rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the jury lost its way in reviewing the evidence in this case. The opinion noted the threatening texts came from the same phone number as a person who called and identified himself as Echols and who threatened Mosser. One of the Instagram accounts sending messages had a profile picture of Echols. Mosser also received a text from the earlier number with a screenshot of Mosser’s Instagram page and the message, “Want to make sure your getting my messages.”

The Fifth District concluded that a rational juror could conclude from the direct threats in the messages that Echols’ intent was to threaten, abuse, or harass Mosser.

On the claim that the Instagram posts weren’t directly sent to Mosser, Judge Hoffman explained that the telecommunications harassment law doesn’t require a message to be sent directly to the person. It only requires the message “knowingly be posted on [an] internet web site or web page for the purpose of abusing, threatening, or harassing another person,” the opinion stated.

The appeals court rejected Echols’ First Amendment argument, noting the difference between objectionable comments and threats.

“… [Echols] argues generally his use of language some might find offensive is protected speech under the First Amendment. However, threats which intimidate or cause fear or apprehension by the recipient are unprotected by the First Amendment. … We find the charges in the instant case related to threatening language, and not to [Echols’] use of offensive language.”

The Fifth District also upheld the menacing by stalking conviction. The messages after the first phone call continued for a week, establishing a pattern of conduct, the court ruled. It also noted that the messages from Echols listed Mosser’s prior address and threatened physical harm. The evidence showed a pattern of conduct and threats of physical harm or mental distress – which support a conviction for menacing by stalking, the court concluded.

Judges W. Scott Gwin and Andrew J. King joined the decision.

State v. Echols, 2024-Ohio-2697.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.