Joe Mixon was found not guilty at his August 2023 aggravated menacing trial in Hamilton County Municipal Court. Judge Gwen Bender delivered the verdict after a four-day bench trial, ruling that prosecutors had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mixon caused a woman to believe he would inflict serious physical harm on her during an alleged road rage confrontation earlier that year.
The Charge Mixon Faced
Prosecutors charged the then-Cincinnati Bengals running back with aggravated menacing, a first-degree misdemeanor under Ohio law. The statute prohibits knowingly causing another person to believe the offender will cause them serious physical harm.1Ohio Legislative Service Commission. Ohio Revised Code 2903.21 – Aggravated Menacing The word “knowingly” carried real weight. The state had to show Mixon deliberately made the woman believe serious harm was imminent, not merely that he behaved aggressively.
A first-degree misdemeanor in Ohio carries a maximum penalty of 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.2Franklin County Municipal Court. Defendant Rights For a professional athlete, the collateral consequences of any conviction reach further than the statutory maximum.
How the Case Got to Trial
The alleged confrontation happened on January 21, 2023, during a traffic dispute in Cincinnati. According to the complaint, Mixon pointed a firearm at the woman and told her he should shoot her, adding that police could not hold him accountable. An arrest warrant issued on February 2.
The first version of the case collapsed almost immediately. The city prosecutor’s office asked for dismissal a day later, citing the need for more investigation, and Judge Curt Kissinger granted it without prejudice. In April 2023, Cincinnati police refiled the aggravated menacing charge after uncovering new evidence. Mixon pleaded not guilty, and the case was set for an August trial.
Why Mixon Chose a Bench Trial
Mixon’s defense waived a jury and asked Judge Bender to decide the case alone. Defense attorney Merlyn Shiverdecker said afterward that the legal questions made a judge better suited to weigh the evidence than jurors who might respond to emotion. In blunter terms, Shiverdecker said Judge Bender was “in a lot better position to call balls and strikes” than jurors who might “be convinced by a drama queen and disregard the law.”
That choice shaped everything that followed. A judge trying a case alone applies the statute mechanically to the elements, and the defense wanted the fight kept on that ground.
Where the Prosecution’s Case Fell Short
The state’s case rested primarily on the accuser’s testimony and statements from responding officers. She described Mixon brandishing a firearm and making explicit threats during the road rage exchange. The harder task for prosecutors was the second element of the offense: proving the woman genuinely and immediately believed she was about to suffer serious physical harm.
The defense went at that element directly. They pointed to inconsistencies in how the woman reacted after the alleged threat, arguing her behavior did not match someone who truly believed serious harm was coming. They also emphasized the absence of independent corroboration, particularly video footage that could confirm a firearm was displayed. Without evidence beyond the accuser’s account, the defense argued, the state could not eliminate reasonable doubt.
The Verdict
Judge Bender returned a not guilty verdict on August 17, 2023, after four days of testimony. The ruling turned on the prosecution’s failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mixon caused the woman to believe he would inflict serious physical harm. The case did not hinge on whether Mixon acted aggressively or whether a gun was present, but on whether the accuser’s subjective belief met the statutory threshold and whether the evidence supporting it was strong enough.
An acquittal ends a criminal case. Under Ohio law, a person found not guilty can also petition the court to seal the official records of the case, and that petition may be filed at any time after the acquittal.3Ohio Legislative Service Commission. Ohio Revised Code 2953.33 – Sealing or Expungement After Not Guilty Finding The court weighs the individual’s interest in a clean record against the government’s interest in keeping the records.
What Happened After the Verdict
The acquittal did not undo the professional fallout. Months before trial, the Bengals restructured Mixon’s contract. His cash compensation fell by nearly $3 million from the prior season, with the reworked deal including $4.1 million guaranteed and $2 million in performance incentives. Mixon publicly framed the change as a decision driven by the “bigger picture.”
The NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy states that avoiding a criminal conviction is “not enough” and that players are “held to a higher standard.” The league can discipline players even when charges are dismissed or result in acquittal, provided its own investigation concludes the player engaged in prohibited conduct.4NFLPA. NFL Personal Conduct Policy No suspension or fine followed the acquittal.
In March 2024, the Bengals traded Mixon to the Houston Texans.5NFL.com. Cincinnati Bengals Trading RB Joe Mixon to Houston Texans
A Separate Case, Not Part of the Trial
The aggravated menacing trial was not Mixon’s only legal matter from 2023, and searchers sometimes confuse the two. A 16-year-old was shot in the foot outside Mixon’s Anderson Township home in March 2023 by Lamonte Brewer, the boyfriend of Mixon’s sister. Prosecutors declined to file criminal charges against Mixon over the shooting. The teenager’s family sued him in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, and the parties reached an undisclosed settlement in July 2025.6Cincinnati Enquirer. Settlement Reached in Anderson Teens Lawsuit Against Former Bengal Joe Mixon That civil matter is distinct from the aggravated menacing trial and did not affect the not guilty verdict.