State v. Meier , 2023 Ohio 490 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Meier, 2023-Ohio-490.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2022-05-050
: OPINION
- vs - 2/21/2023
:
MORTON W. MEIER, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 21TRD03142
Laura Gibson, Hamilton Municipal Court Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Repper-Pagan Law, Ltd., and Christopher J. Pagan, for appellant.
PIPER, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Morton Meier, timely appeals his minor misdemeanor conviction in
the Hamilton Municipal Court. After a trial to the bench Meier was found guilty as charged
in the traffic citation for violating Hamilton Codified Ordinance 333.022. Meier was issued
a fine for $25.00 and ordered to pay court costs.
EVENTS LEADING TO MEIER'S CITATION
{¶2} On September 7, 2021, Deborah Gleason was stopped at a stop sign on
Butler CA2022-05-050
northbound Lawn Avenue at its intersections with Main Street. Main Street is a two-lane
road with one eastbound lane and one westbound lane. Apparently, there are no
designated turn lanes.
{¶3} As she waited for traffic to clear, Gleason observed a red car approach from
her left headed eastbound on Main Street. Gleason testified that the red car was
approaching her position with the right turn signal activated. Before the red car was able to
fully turn right onto Lawn Avenue, a black car attempted to pass the red car on the right.
This resulted in a collision whereby the red car collided with the black car; the black car
then collided into Gleason's vehicle.
{¶4} The red car was driven by Tamara Follmer. Follmer testified that she was
proceeding eastbound on Main Street and had activated her right turn signal to turn right
on Lawn Avenue. As she was turning, Follmer stated that the black car struck her vehicle
smashing the right-side quarter panel. Follmer testified that she did not talk to the driver of
the black vehicle after the accident because "he was screaming at us, telling us it was our
fault."
{¶5} The black vehicle that attempted to pass on Follmer's right side was driven by
Meier. Meier stated that he had just left the grocery store driving eastbound on Main Street.
Meier testified that "I was driving east on Main Street following the traffic * * * I was driving
along. Bam. Crash." Meier further testified that he did not know what had happened
because he was "blind-sided on the left side." He explained "I was driving along and all of
a sudden, bam on the left, crash on the right."
{¶6} After a Hamilton police officer investigated the collision, Meier was charged
by citation with motor vehicle operation without reasonable control in violation of Hamilton
Codified Ordinance 333.022. Following a bench trial before a magistrate, Meier was found
guilty. Meier filed objections to the magistrate's guilty finding, which the trial court overruled.
-2-
Butler CA2022-05-050
Meier now raises two assignments of error for our review.
{¶7} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶8} THEIR [sic] CONVICTION FOR OPERATION WITHOUT REASONABLE
CONTROL WAS UNLAWFUL BECAUSE NEGLIGENCE WAS THE CULPABLE MENTAL
STATE, THE TRIAL COURT CONSIDERED PROPER CONTROL RATHER THAN
REASONABLE CONTROL, AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT.
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Meier argues his conviction was unlawful in
not containing the culpable mental state of negligence and the trial court applied an
improper standard for operating a motor vehicle. 1 For these and other suggested reasons
Meier argues there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
{¶10} "Whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to sustain a
verdict is a question of law." State v. Grinstead, 194 Ohio App.3d 755, 2011-Ohio-3018, ¶
10 (12th Dist.). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal
conviction, an appellate court examines the evidence to determine whether such evidence,
if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Thomin, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2019-11-188 and CA2019-12-199, 2020-
Ohio-4625, ¶ 6. The relevant inquiry is "whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d
259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. This test "requires a determination as to whether
the state has met its burden of production at trial." State v. Boles, 12th Dist. Brown No.
CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-5202, ¶ 34. "When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence,
1. When a statute fails to specify a degree of culpability, recklessness is the "catchall culpable mental state"
except for strict liability statutes. State v. Adams, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2009-09-018, 2010-Ohio-1942, ¶
8. Nevertheless, Meier maintains that the applicable culpability required in this case is negligence.
-3-
Butler CA2022-05-050
this court defers to the trier of fact regarding questions of credibility." State v. Wesley, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2015-04-077, 2015-Ohio-5031, ¶ 7.
{¶11} Meier was found guilty of operation without reasonable control in violation of
Hamilton Codified Ordinance 333.022, which states:
(a) No person shall operate a motor vehicle * * * on any street,
highway, or property open to the public for vehicular traffic
without being in reasonable control of the vehicle * * *.
(b) Whoever violates this section is guilty of operating a motor
vehicle * * * without being in control of it, a minor misdemeanor.
(ORC 4511.202)
{¶12} The trial court found Meier guilty of the minor misdemeanor offense. The trial
court stated the evidence supported a finding that Meier inappropriately attempted to pass
a vehicle on the right even though there was no lane available to make such a pass. The
trial court found the testimony from Gleason and Follmer was credible. The trial court also
stated:
There were errors in the accident report, concerning the
direction of the turn of the vehicle and whether this was a rear
end damage accident. However, the testimony was clear and it
established that Mr. Meier failed to properly control his vehicle
and caused the accident herein. The Defendant's version of the
incident was that he was simply following rush hour traffic and
he was "blindsided on the left." However, he testified initially
that he was unsure of what happened and went back to the
scene of the collision to determine what had happened. He
claimed he was just following traffic east. It is clear that the area
of the accident does not consist of two lanes travelling east nor
is there a middle turn lane. The location of the damage on the
vehicles indicates that Mr. Meier would have had to be directly
behind the first impacted vehicle immediately before the
contact. However, he claims that he did not see that car before
the accident. The testimony by the [City] established proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Meier was guilty of the
offense charged herein.
{¶13} On appeal, Meier attempts to support this assigned error by pointing out that
there were mistakes in the investigating police officer's report and therefore the issuance of
-4-
Butler CA2022-05-050
the citation was yet another "mistake." Despite acknowledging case law to the contrary,
Meier states that the "caselaw is wrong for imposing strict liability when negligence is
required." However, no binding or persuasive authority is cited for the proposition that strict
liability is not to be applied.
{¶14} Meier further maintains the trial court erred when it found him guilty of failing
to "properly" control his vehicle instead of parroting the words of the ordinance referring to
the failure to maintain "reasonable” control. He also argues that the city had to prove
"unreasonable loss of control" but does not elaborate further in applying his argument to
the circumstances in this case. Finally, Meier argues that the city produced insufficient
evidence that he committed a violation of Hamilton Codified Ordinance 333.022.
{¶15} Following review, we find the trial court's decision was supported by sufficient
evidence and Meier's conviction was not otherwise unlawful. The city presented testimony
from Gleason and Follmer who testified about the events leading up to the collision. The
evidence showed that Meier drove to the right of Follmer's vehicle as if to pass her in the
same lane of travel while Follmer was turning right. This resulted in a collision which
damaged all three vehicles and caused injuries. The trial court specifically found that
Gleason and Follmer were credible and found Meier guilty of the offense. As this court has
previously stated, the trial court is in the best position to weigh the evidence and evaluate
the witnesses' credibility. State v. Lytle, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-04-077, 2018-Ohio-
5046, ¶ 19.
{¶16} In so doing, we find the arguments raised by Meier are without merit. We
disagree with Meier's suggestion that case law imposing strict liability should not be applied.
The specific language of the ordinance makes it a strict liability offense. Middleburg Hts. v.
D'Ettorre, 138 Ohio App.3d 700, 705-706 (8th Dist. 2000). The ordinance requires that a
driver maintain "reasonable control" and the failure to do so results in a violation. Id. See
-5-
Butler CA2022-05-050
State v. Simpson, 5th Dist. Knox No. 07CA000022, 2008-Ohio-1165, ¶ 27 (strict liability is
imposed upon a motorist when the vehicle being operated goes left of center); Middleburg
Hts. v. Troyan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 105132 thru 105135, 2017-Ohio-7074, ¶ 8 (R.C.
955.22[C] requires a dog be under "reasonable control" of a person and is a strict liability
offense).2
{¶17} In this case, Meier did not maintain reasonable control of his vehicle when he
attempted to pass to the right of the vehicle in front of him, a vehicle making a right-hand
turn, resulting in the collision. State v. Lunsford, 118 Ohio App.3d 380, 383 (12th Dist.1997)
(defendant's failure to maintain reasonable control of his vehicle was not insufficient or
against the manifest weight of the evidence); State v. Larbus, 160 Ohio App.3d 286, 2005-
Ohio-1695, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.) (also finding such a conviction was not insufficient or contrary to
the manifest weight). The trial court was correct in determining Meier's attempt to pass on
the right was not reasonable when there was no lane permitting a right turn. The
unreasonableness of Meier's operation of his vehicle is accentuated by the fact the vehicle
he attempted to pass was turning right and had its turn signal blinking. In other words,
Meier had no reason to expect he had a right of way in which to pass the turning vehicle.
{¶18} Even if negligence were the culpable mental state associated with the
ordinance, as Meier suggests, the evidence here shows that Meier was, at the very least,
negligent in failing to reasonably control his vehicle. See R.C. 2901.22 ("A person is
negligent with respect to circumstances when, because of a substantial lapse from due
care, the person fails to perceive or avoid a risk that such circumstances may exist"); State
v. Tipton, 11th Dist. Portage Case No. 773, 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 10632, at *2 (Mar. 20,
1978) (negligence is the least culpable mental state).
2. We find no need to duplicate the reasoning of numerous courts as to why strict liability has been routinely
applied to statutes requiring reasonable control.
-6-
Butler CA2022-05-050
{¶19} Regarding the apparent errors in the investigating police officer's report, the
trial court found those errors did not impact resolution of the case. The investigating police
officer was not called as a witness. Rather, the trial court heard credible testimony from
Gleason and Follmer. Both Gleason and Follmer provided clear testimony about the events
leading up to the collision. We are likewise unpersuaded by Meier's argument that the trial
court misstated the applicable standard contained in Hamilton Codified Ordinance 333.022.
While the trial court stated that Meier failed to "properly control his vehicle," the trial court
also cited the relevant ordinance and found "[t]he testimony presented by the [city]
established proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Meier was guilty of the offense
charged herein." The use of the term "properly" does not imply or suggest that the trial
court did not recognize "reasonable control" is the ordinance's verbiage. Meier's lack of
reasonable control was certainly improper. Finding no basis in any of Meier's arguments,
we overrule his first assignment of error.
{¶20} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶21} THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED AN UNLAWFUL COMMUNITY-CONTROL
SENTENCE.
{¶22} In his second assignment of error, Meier argues the trial court improperly
imposed a community control sentence. However, review of the record reveals this is not
the case. The magistrate's decision does contain surplusage stating it "THEREFORE
IMPOSES THE FOLLOWING COMMUNITY CONTROL SANCTIONS," which is followed
by a blank line. Thereafter, the decision lists the court costs and $25 fine that was ordered
for the violation. The trial court's decision overruling Meier’s objections also did not impose
a community control sanction. Contrary to Meier’s suggestion, he is not on community
control for this minor misdemeanor offense. Therefore, Meier's second assignment of error
is overruled.
-7-
Butler CA2022-05-050
{¶23} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
-8-