From yesterday’s decision by the Ohio Court of Appeals State v. Golgotha (My students Dice Hagiwara, Jonathan Kaiman, and Brandon Peevy and I had filed an amicus brief in the case, with the invaluable help of local attorney Jeffrey M. Nye [Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson], on behalf of Profs. Stephen Lazarus, Kevin O’Neill, Margaret Tarkington, the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and myself, urging that the conviction be overturned):
The City of North Ridgeville…has shut off the water supply to Mr. Golga’s residence due to non-payment. He responded by calling the city water department eight times over the course of 26 minutes. During the calls, he yelled, used foul language and insisted that his service be restored. An accounting clerk attempted to help him but interrupted several calls because Mr. Golga would not stop shouting and swearing at her. Needing a moment, he allowed another of his calls to go to voicemail. He left the following voice message:
[Y]You can’t just hang up on people. That’s fucking bullshit. If you’re trying to kill me by shutting off my water, then fuck you. And if you want me to get to the heart of the matter, we can have a fucking conversation, fuck off! You think you’re damn bad? Yes, fuck it. Let him starve. Let’s fucking kill them all, right? Fuck you!
Mr. Golga eventually spoke to the city’s utilities director who devised a plan to restore Mr. Golga’s water service the next morning.
After Mr. Golga’s voicemail message was forwarded to the police, he was charged with telecommunications harassment in violation of section 2917.21(A)(1) of the Revised Code. A jury found him guilty of the crime. The municipal court sentenced Mr. Golga to 180 days in jail but suspended 177 days. It also ordered him to complete anger management.
The Court of Appeals reversed, in an opinion written by Judge Jennifer Hensal and supported by Judge Donna Carr:
Section 2917.21(A)(1) prohibits any person from knowingly engaging in a telecommunications “with the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or abusing any person on the premises where the telecommunications are made, whether or not the actual communication occurs between the caller and a recipient * * *.” “‘Abuse’ can be defined as ‘[t]or hurt (a person) physically or mentally.'” Intimidation “involves creating fear in the victim,” especially through threats. “Finally, ‘harassment’ can be defined as ‘[w]orders, behavior or actions (usually repeated or persistent) which, being directed at a specific person, annoy, alarm or cause significant emotional distress to that person and serve no legitimate purpose; intentional harassment.”…
It is understandable that employees felt harassed, intimidated and mistreated by Mr. Golga’s profanity-laced rants and were justified in hanging up on his repeated calls. For Mr. Golga to be guilty of harassment in the telecommunications industry, however, one must focus on his state of mind and whether it was his purpose to “abuse, [intimidate]or harass them.”
A careful examination of the record reveals that it contains no evidence that Mr. Golga’s calls were made to intentionally abuse, intimidate, or harass employees. Employees testified that Mr. Golga called the Utilities Department to restore water service. He started the first call politely, but got angry when he learned they couldn’t or wouldn’t help him. He began swearing at them repeatedly and accusing them of trying to kill him and his children by depriving them of water. He specifically told a child who was with him that the employee he was talking to wanted to kill the child. The employees could not remember exactly what Mr. Golga said during the phone calls, but said the content was similar to his voicemail. Mr. Golga stopped calling after the utilities director intervened and made arrangements with Mr. Golga to restore service.
On his voicemail, Mr. Golga expressed the thought that the employees were trying to harm and harass him. He declined their invitation to come to the utilities department to have a conversation. He accused them of trying to behave “badly”.[,]”trying to “screw” him, trying to starve him, and trying to kill him. These are statements of someone who is threatened, not someone who is intentionally trying to harass, intimidate, or abuse others. Dissent argues that there is no was evidence that employees had invited Mr. Golga to come to the water department, but the employee who initially received Mr. Golga’s calls testified that, after a customer receives a permanent shut-off notice, the customer must go to the department to make arrangements to continue their service, including putting the arrangements in writing.
Because there was no evidence of intentional intent on the part of Mr. Golga, we conclude that his conviction for telecommunications harassment is not supported by sufficient evidence….
Judge Carr joined, but added:
I write separately to express my concern that telecommunications harassment prosecutions like the one here could have a chilling effect on citizens’ First Amendment rights to contact government offices to redress complaints. Courts should keep in mind that the First Amendment offers protection against laws that limit free speech and the freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Justice Jill Flagg Lanzinger dissented; an extract:
Both the accounting clerk and the utilities director repeatedly expressed how Mr. Golga’s calls negatively affected them. They testified that they felt abused, intimidated, harassed and worried about their safety. The accounting clerk testified that, in her 17 years working for the Water Department, she “only had two clients [she had] I was really * * * worried about them coming to City Hall and Mr. Golga was one of them.” The utilities director testified that, of all the “angry residents” he had dealt with during his time at City Hall, Mr. Golga “rank[ed] number one.”…
Viewing the evidence in a light more favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact might have concluded that the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Golga repeatedly called the Water Department to yell and curse at the two women who answered his calls. Although he initially called the department for a legitimate purpose (i.e., to restore water service), the accounting clerk testified that he quickly became aggressive when he was told that his water service would not be restored without payment. The change in his tone and manner of speech, combined with the frequency of his calls, evidenced a specific intent to abuse, intimidate, or harass the accounting clerk and utility director. Both women described how Mr Golga shouted at them, swore at them and refused to listen to any of their efforts to help him.
The voicemail he left contained no pleas for help or questions about restoring his service. She left the voicemail condemning the accounting clerk for interrupting her call, accusing her of trying to kill him and suggesting that she would like him to “cut to the chase” to “get a s–t.” accounting clerk that the utilities director noted that Mr. Golga’s calls were among the worst they had received while working for the City. Indeed, Mr. Golga appeared to recognize the outrageousness of his own behavior when he introduced himself as “the psychopath” or something similar Based on the foregoing evidence, the jury could reasonably have concluded that it was Mr. Golga’s specific intent to mentally harm the women, cause them fear, and/or annoy, alarm, or cause them significant emotional distress without a legitimate purpose….
Peter Pattakos and Gregory Gipson represent Golga.