In re Yohe ( 2009 )

[Cite as In re Yohe, 2009-Ohio-5659.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
PUTNAM COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF:
CASE NO. 12-09-02
CHRISTOPHER YOHE,
ALLEGED JUVENILE OPINION
TRAFFIC OFFENDER.
Appeal from Putnam County Common Pleas Court,
Juvenile Division
Trial Court No. 20091008
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 26, 2009
APPEARANCES:
Bradley S. Warren for Appellant
Michael Borer for Appellee
Case No. 12-09-02
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Appellant Christopher Yohe (“Yohe”) brings this appeal from the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Putnam county, Juvenile Division,
finding him delinquent for violation of Village of Ottawa Ordinance 333.08, a
traffic offense. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On January 15, 2009, Yohe was driving on Chippewa Dr. The
weather was cold and snowy and the road had not been plowed. Yohe hit slush
and snow on the road, overcorrected the vehicle, and spun around hitting a
mailbox. Yohe then drove home, one block away, and contacted the police.
Officer John Mullins (“Mullins”) of the Ottawa Police Department responded to
the call and conducted the investigation. Mullins then cited Yohe for operating a
motor vehicle without reasonable control, a violation of the Village of Ottawa
Ordinance 333.08.
{¶3} On April 13, 2009, an adjudicatory hearing was held. Mullins
testified that based upon the tracks, the vehicle spun around, left the road, and
struck the mailbox. Yohe also testified that this is what happened. Following the
witnesses, the trial court determined that Yohe was delinquent for commission of a
violation of ordinance 333.08, a minor misdemeanor if he was an adult. Yohe
appeals from this decision and raises the following assignment of error.
The trial court erred in finding that the village of Ottawa had
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [Yohe] operated his
-2-
Case No. 12-09-02
motor vehicle without being in reasonable control thereof, with
the judgment below being manifestly against the weight of the
evidence and not supported by sufficient evidence.
{¶4} The assignment of error makes two challenges: 1) the verdict is not
supported by sufficient evidence and 2) the verdict is against the manifest weight
of the evidence.
With respect to sufficiency of the evidence, “‘sufficiency’ is a
term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to
determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the
evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a
matter of law.” * * * In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy.
Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a
question of law. * * * In addition, a conviction based on legally
insufficient evidence constitutes a denial of due process.
State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (citations
omitted).
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
criminal conviction, a court must examine the evidence
admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if
believed, would convince the average juror of the defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is
whether, after reviewing 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. LeFlore, 3d Dist. No. 3-08-06, 2008-Ohio-4508, ¶3, quoting State v.
Ready (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 748, 759, 758 N.E.2d 1203.
{¶5} In this case Yohe was cited for failing to control his vehicle. The
testimony presented by both Mullins and Yohe was that Yohe hit the snow and
-3-
Case No. 12-09-02
slush, overcorrected the vehicle, spun around, left the road, and struck the
mailbox. Viewing this testimony in a light most favorable to the State, a rational
trier of fact could conclude that Yohe failed to control his vehicle. Thus, the
judgment is supported by sufficient evidence.
{¶6} Yohe also argues that the verdict is against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
Weight of the evidence concerns “the inclination of the greater
amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one
side of the issue rather than the other. It indicates clearly to the
jury that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to
their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they
shall find the greater amount of credible evidence sustains the
issue which is to be established before them. Weight is not a
question of mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing
belief.”
State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 514 (citing
Black’s Law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 1594). A new trial should be granted only
in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against conviction.
Id. Although the appellate court may act as a thirteenth juror, it should still give
due deference to the findings made by the fact-finder.
The fact-finder, being the jury, occupies a superior position in
determining credibility. The fact-finder can hear and see as
well as observe the body language, evaluate voice inflections,
observe hand gestures, perceive the interplay between the
witness and the examiner, and watch the witness’s reaction to
exhibits and the like. Determining credibility from a sterile
transcript is a Herculean endeavor. A reviewing court must,
-4-
Case No. 12-09-02
therefore, accord due deference to the credibility determinations
made by the fact-finder.
State v. Thompson (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 511, 529, 713 N.E.2d 456.
{¶7} Yohe argues that the accident was caused not by his misconduct, but
rather mechanical failure of the car. Yohe claims that three nails in the tire made
the tire pressure low, which resulted in the accident. Regardless of what the
underlying cause was, Yohe certainly lost control of his car. The issue then
becomes one of whether it is excused. A sudden emergency will only relieve one
of complying with safety statutes if the emergency is one over which the driver
has no control and not of his making. Spalding v. Waxler (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 1,
5, 205 N.E.2d 890. The burden of proving this legal excuse is on the defendant.
Id. at 7. Here, Yohe claims that the low tire was the cause of the accident. He
also admitted that he was probably driving too fast for the day and that there had
been prior problems with the tire. Yohe had control over part of the factors
causing the accident. Therefore, the legal excuse cannot relieve him of his
responsibility. The trial court, which was the trier of fact, did not believe he had
proven that the low tire was the cause of the accident. The evidence does not
weigh heavily against this conclusion. Thus, the verdict is not against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶8} Since the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence and not against
the manifest weight of the evidence, the assignment of error is overruled. The
-5-
Case No. 12-09-02
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Putnam County, Juvenile Division, is
affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
ROGERS and SHAW, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-6-