Twinsburg v. Wesby , 2012 Ohio 569 ( 2012 )

[Cite as Twinsburg v. Wesby, 2012-Ohio-569.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
CITY OF TWINSBURG C.A. No. 25813
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
QUIANA WESBY STOW MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 10 TRC 9680
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: February 15, 2012
MOORE, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Quiana Wesby, appeals from her convictions in the Stow Municipal
Court. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In the early morning hours of October 24, 2010, Quiana Wesby felt ill and left the
home of her friend. While she was driving on State Route 82, Officer Dan Fidoe of the City of
Twinsburg Police Department observed Wesby swerve over the lane markings. After initiating a
traffic stop and performing certain sobriety tests, Officer Fidoe cited Wesby for operating a
vehicle while impaired and for weaving, in violation of Twinsburg City Ordinances
333.01(a)(1)(A) and 341.34(b), respectively.
{¶3} At trial, Wesby argued that her poor performance on the sobriety tests was not the
result of alcohol consumption, but instead resulted from hyperglycemia due to her diabetes, from
which she has suffered for twenty-four years. The trial court found Wesby guilty on both
2
charges and, among other sanctions, sentenced her to 30 days in jail, of which 27 days were
suspended, and the remaining 3 days could be served by the completion of a 3-day driver
intervention program.
{¶4} Wesby timely filed a notice of appeal and presents one assignment of error for our
review. Wesby filed a motion asking this Court to take judicial notice of certain medical articles
pertaining to diabetes.
II.
{¶5} As a preliminary matter, we will address Wesby’s motion for judicial notice of
certain articles that she purports were published by the National Institutes of Health pertaining to
diabetes. Generally, an appellate court may take judicial notice of any fact of which the trial
court could have taken notice, even where the trial court failed to do so. See, e.g., Day v. Day, 40
Ohio App. 3d 155, 160 (10th Dist.1988), fn. 4.
{¶6} In support of her request for this Court to take judicial notice of the facts within
the articles that she has supplied, Wesby cites Evid.R. 201, which provides:
(A) Scope of rule
This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts; i.e., the facts of the
case.
(B) Kinds of facts
A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is
either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2)
capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned.
(C) When discretionary
A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.
(D) When mandatory
3
A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the
necessary information.
(E) Opportunity to be heard
A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the
propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the
absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has
been taken.
(F) Time of taking notice
Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.
{¶7} The Staff Notes to Evid.R. 201 provide that the rule, “in its entirety, reflects
existing Ohio practice and, except for the added clarifying language to subdivision (A) which is
not intended to result in a contrary construction, is identical to Federal Evidence Rule 201.”
1980 Staff Note, Evid.R. 201. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Evid. 201 explain, “The
usual method of establishing adjudicative facts is through the introduction of evidence, ordinarily
consisting of the testimony of witnesses. If particular facts are outside the area of reasonable
controversy, this process is dispensed with as unnecessary. A high degree of indisputability is the
essential prerequisite.” In accordance, a “judge may inform himself as to the facts of geography,
such as the navigable character of a river, the distance between two points, or the location of a
given place within the jurisdiction by resort to * * * public documents, maps, etc.” State v.
Burkhalter, 6th Dist. No. L-05-1111, 2006-Ohio-1623, ¶ 18, quoting State v. Scott, 3 Ohio
App.2d 239, 243 (7th Dist.1965). Other facts, such as those of a scientific or medical nature,
may be judicially noticed, so long as these facts meet the requirements of Evid.R. 201. See 1980
Staff Note, Evid.R. 201(B) (“The type of fact contemplated by 201(B)(2) includes scientific,
historical and statistical data which can be verified and is beyond reasonable dispute.”) For
example, scientific “theories that are so firmly established as to have attained the status of
4
scientific law, such as laws of thermodynamics, properly are subject to judicial notice * * *.”
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993), fn. 11.
{¶8} Within her request, Wesby essentially urges this Court to take judicial notice of
the following “facts”: (1) that goal blood glucose levels range between 80 and 120; (2) diabetic
ketoacidosis is associated with blood glucose levels over 300 “and causes fruity breath,
decreased consciousness and mental stupor,” and (3) fruity breath caused by the presence of
acetones is present in people suffering from diabetic ketoacidosis, which occurs when an
individual is hyperglycemic.”
{¶9} In support of these factual propositions, Wesby has provided three articles. The
first article “If You Have Diabetes…Know Your Blood Sugar Numbers!” displays a publication
number by the National Institutes of Health. This article provides advice regarding the
monitoring of blood sugar levels by diabetics. Wesby contends that this article evidences that
“goal blood-glucose levels [are] between 80 and 120.” A review of the article demonstrates that
this “fact” is not “capable of accurate and ready determination.” See Evid.R. 201(B). The article
sets forth that diabetics should “[s]et [their] goals with [their] health care team. Blood glucose
goals for most people with diabetes when self-testing are on these charts.” Two charts are
provided, one for “plasma values” and one for “whole blood values.” Each chart then contains
two rows displaying values for “before meals” and “1 to 2 hours after meals.” Thus, because of
the variables involved, coupled with the article’s admonition that goals should be set with an
individual’s personal healthcare provider and that the charts provide goals for “most” people, we
conclude that the “fact” proposed by Wesby is not “capable of accurate and ready determination”
under Evid.R. 201(B).
5
{¶10} The remaining two articles, “Diabetic Ketoacidosis” and “Breath Odor” set forth,
in relevant portions, purported symptoms of diabetic ketoacidosis and causes of “fruity breath.”
These articles display their sources as “MedlinePlus” followed by “U.S. National Library of
Medicine NIH National Institutes of Health.” These articles were published by “A.D.A.M., Inc.”
and contain the following disclaimer, “The information provided herein should not be used
during any medical emergency or for the diagnosis or treatment of any medical condition. A
licensed physician should be consulted for diagnosis and treatment of any and all medical
conditions.” As to these articles, we cannot determine from the information that Wesby has
provided whether the sources are such that the information contained therein “cannot reasonably
be questioned,” and, accordingly, we need not take judicial notice of the “facts” therein set forth.
Evid.R. 201(D).
{¶11} Based upon the foregoing, this is not a case where this Court deems it mandated
or prudent to take judicial notice as requested by Wesby, and, accordingly, her motion is denied.
Therefore, we will confine our review of Wesby’s assignment of error to the record.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
[]WESBY’S CONVICTIONS FOR OPERATING A VEHICLE UNDER THE
INFLUENCE AND WEAVING WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 3, ARTICLE IV, OHIO
CONSTITUTION AS THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AT
TRIAL DEMONSTRATED HER POOR DRIVING WAS DUE TO
HYPERGLYCEMIA FROM DIABETES.
{¶12} In her sole assignment of error, Wesby argues that her convictions for operating a
vehicle under the influence and weaving were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We
do not agree.
{¶13} When a defendant asserts that her conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence,
6
an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine
whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way
and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be
reversed and a new trial ordered.
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App. 3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986).
{¶14} In making this determination, this Court is mindful that “[e]valuating evidence
and assessing credibility are primarily for the trier of fact.” State v. Shue, 97 Ohio App. 3d 459,
466 (9th Dist.1994), citing Ostendorf-Morris Co. v. Slyman, 6 Ohio App. 3d 46, 47 (8th
Dist.1982) and Crull v. Maple Park Body Shop, 36 Ohio App. 3d 153, 154 (12th Dist.1987).
{¶15} Here, Wesby was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence, in
violation of Twinsburg City Ordinance (“City Ord.”) 333.01(a)(1)(A), and weaving, in violation
of City Ord. 341.34(b). In support of its case, the prosecution called Officer Fidoe. Officer
Fidoe testified that, when he approached Wesby’s car, he smelled the odor of alcohol and asked
her if she had been drinking. She replied that she had two small beers. Officer Fidoe then
performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, and the defense stipulated that the officer
observed a total of four out of six clues. Next, Officer Fidoe administered a walk and turn test,
noting four out of eight clues. Officer Fidoe also instructed Wesby on performing a one-leg
stand. During this test, Wesby dropped her foot three times. Based upon Wesby’s performance
on these tests, Officer Fidoe placed her under arrest for operating a vehicle while impaired.
{¶16} Officer Fidoe then asked Wesby if she needed to retrieve anything from her car,
and she retrieved her insulin, which alerted the officer to her diabetic condition. The officer
requested a medical squad meet them at the police station to check Wesby for any medical
problems. When they arrived at the police station, Wesby’s blood sugar was 390. Wesby
administered a shot of insulin to herself. The officer then read her the “2255 form,” and waited
7
the required twenty minutes to administer the breath test with the BAC testing device. However,
at the end of the waiting period, Wesby refused to take submit a breath sample. The medical
squad then requested Wesby sign a release “stating she was OK,” to which she replied “she was
fine,” and “her blood sugar was always high.” However, she went on to state that she needed to
go to the hospital because her diabetes was very serious. Officer Fidoe then requested that she
sign a form consenting to release her from arrest so that she could go to the hospital on her own
accord, but she refused, and the officer proceeded to take her to the hospital with the medical
squad while she was under arrest. En route, when the medic tried to give Wesby an IV to lower
her blood sugar, she said “you’re not stickin’ nothing in my arm, I’m fine.” To this, the medic
questioned “you’re refusing the IV to help bring down your blood sugar?” Wesby replied,
“[Y]es, I am.” When they arrived at the hospital, Officer Fidoe left one of Wesby’s hands free
from the belly chains, and the nurse gave her a cup and asked for a urine sample, but Wesby
came back from the restroom without the cup. The nurse asked where it was, and Wesby stated
that “you’re not getting no urine sample.” Wesby also refused a blood draw and asked for a
sandwich and a juice.
{¶17} In response, the defense argued that Wesby’s behavior and impaired driving
exhibited on October 24, 2010 were due to her diabetes. Wesby testified at trial on her own
behalf. She has been diabetic for twenty-four years, and she explained that her blood sugar
levels are typically not well-controlled. She stated that her diabetes often causes her an inability
to carry on conversations, irritability, stubbornness, poor coordination, nausea, frequent
urination, dry mouth, and shakiness. Although she had two beers at 9:00 p.m. the night prior, she
was not stopped by the officer until 4:00 a.m. on October 24, 2010. Wesby stated that when a
person’s blood sugar levels are high, this causes diabetic ketoacidosis, which produces acetones
8
on the breath. She was aware of “other cases” where acetones caused false positive breathalyzer
readings and she refused to perform the BAC datamaster test for this reason. On cross-
examination, Wesby explained that she did not tell the officers that the diabetes was the reason
she refused to provide the breath sample, but she explained that she has difficulty carrying on
conversations when she is in a hyperglycemic state. Wesby stated that her failure to provide a
urine sample was due to the restriction of her hand movement due to the belly chain. Further,
Wesby claimed that she did provide a blood sample at the hospital. However, the results of the
blood test, according to Wesby, were not introduced into evidence at trial, but instead were
submitted to the trial court for sentencing purposes, and then returned to her.
{¶18} We note that although Wesby alleges that her diabetic hyperglycemia symptoms
include poor coordination, which, if accurate, may account for her poor performance on the
“walk and turn” and “one leg stand” tests, she provides no explanation for her poor showing on
the Horizontal Gaze Nsytagmus test, from which the parties stipulated that Officer Fidoe had
noted four of six clues.
{¶19} After reviewing the entire record, weighing the inferences and examining the
credibility of witnesses, we cannot say that the trial court’s resolution of the testimony was
unreasonable. Consequently, this is not the exceptional case where the trial court clearly lost its
way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice in finding Wesby guilty. Where the evidence
indicates that the finder of fact could reasonably choose between the State’s or the defendant’s
version of the events, “[a] conviction is not against the manifest weight because the [finder of
fact] chose to credit the State’s version of events.” State v. Peasley, 9th Dist. No. 25062, 2010-
Ohio-4333, ¶ 18, citing State v. Morgan, 9th Dist. No. 22848, 2006-Ohio-3921, ¶ 35.
Accordingly, Wesby’s assignment of error is overruled.
9
III.
{¶20} Wesby’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Stow Municipal
Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Stow Municipal
Court, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, J.
CONCURS
BELLFANCE, P. J.
CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY
10
APPEARANCES:
J. DEAN CARRO, Appellate Review Office, School of Law, The University of Akron, for
Appellant.
DAVID M. MAISTROS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.