State v. Mahmoud , 2024 Ohio 4624 ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Mahmoud, 2024-Ohio-4624.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
FAYETTE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2023-12-019
: OPINION
- vs - 9/23/2024
:
HADEEM MOHAMAD MAHMOUD, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI 20230180
Jess C. Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Steven H. Eckstein, for appellant.
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Hadeem Mohamad Mahmoud, appeals his conviction in the
Fayette County Court of Common Pleas for one count of failure to comply. For the
reasons discussed below, we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On the afternoon of June 24, 2023, Sergeant Burd of the Ohio State
Highway Patrol received information that a yellow Dodge Charger had been stolen from
Fayette CA2023-12-019
a car dealership in northern Kentucky and was travelling northbound on Interstate 71. It
was later determined that the yellow Charger was driven by Mahmoud.
{¶ 3} From his patrol car, Sergeant Burd observed northbound traffic and
eventually spotted the yellow Charger on the highway. Sergeant Burd then followed the
Charger, confirmed that the license plate and dealership tags matched the description of
the stolen vehicle, and pulled alongside the Charger to look at the driver. Although the
driver's side window of the Charger was tinted, Sergeant Burd could clearly observe the
driver's facial features. Eventually, the driver turned to look at Sergeant Burd's vehicle,
and Sergeant Burd had a clear view of the driver's face.
{¶ 4} Sergeant Burd radioed ahead to an airplane flown by the Ohio State
Highway Patrol and told the pilot that he had located the stolen Charger and that he was
backing off to avoid triggering a high-speed chase. As the Charger exited the interstate,
Sergeant Burd heard the roar of the Charger's exhaust, indicating that the driver had
"mashed" the accelerator. As Sergeant Burd attempted to catch up, he observed a yellow
mirror flying through the air, indicating that the Charger had struck another vehicle.
Seeing that the Charger was already driving recklessly, Sergeant Burd chose not to turn
on his siren and lights to avoid escalating the chase. Sergeant Burd attempted to follow
the Charger from a distance, observing the Charger reach speeds in excess of 100 miles
per hour, until he lost sight of it on State Route 73.
{¶ 5} The police then received a "ping" from the navigation system in the Charger
through a nearby cell tower enabling them to determine its general location. Several
minutes after Sergeant Burd lost sight of the Charger, the airplane pilot located the
Charger again. Another patrol car made contact with the Charger and activated its lights
and siren, but the Charger did not stop. The police followed from a distance and
attempted to deploy stop sticks in the Charger's path, but were unable to stop the vehicle.
-2-
Fayette CA2023-12-019
The Charger eventually came to a stop on a dead-end street in Washington Court House,
Fayette County, Ohio and the driver abandoned the vehicle. The police then lost sight of
the driver.
{¶ 6} A few hours later, the police responded to reports of a suspicious female
and juvenile male walking near the Washington Cemetery. Patrolman Marcum of the
Washington Court House Police Department stopped and talked to the female and
juvenile male, and learned that the juvenile male was a passenger in the Charger. The
female and juvenile male provided a description of the driver.
{¶ 7} Later that night, Patrolman Marcum responded to a report of a suspicious
man walking on U.S. Route 22. Patrolman Marcum made contact with the man and
recognized that he matched the description previously provided. Patrolman Marcum then
took a photograph of the man. The photograph was later sent to Sergeant Burd, who
identified the photograph as the driver he observed in the yellow Charger. Mahmoud was
identified as the driver and was later arrested.
{¶ 8} After a jury trial, Mahmoud was found guilty on one count of failure to
comply. Mahmoud now appeals, raising one assignment of error for our review.
II. Legal Analysis
{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 1:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ACCEPTED THE
GUILTY VERDICT AS SUCH VERDICT IS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
{¶ 10} In his sole assignment of error, Mahmoud argues that the jury's verdict was
against the manifest weight of the evidence because the evidence did not clearly establish
his identity as the driver of the Charger. Mahmoud asserts that Sergeant Burd was lying
when he testified that he could clearly observe the facial features of the driver through the
tinted window, and that the facial features of the driver would have been shadowed and
-3-
Fayette CA2023-12-019
obscured. Mahmoud further asserts that Sergeant Burd based his identification of the
photograph purely on the circumstance that Mahmoud was found walking in the area near
where the Charger was abandoned. Therefore, Mahmoud argues that the jury clearly lost
its way when it found Sergeant Burd's testimony to be credible. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 11} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a 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. Paul, 2012-Ohio-3205, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.). Therefore, "[t]he 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.
{¶ 12} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the "inclination of
the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue
rather than the other." State v. Barnett, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). To determine
whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court
must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider
the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the 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. Graham,
2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 13} In reviewing the evidence, an appellate court must be mindful that the
original trier of fact was in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and
determine the weight to be given to the evidence. State v. Blankenburg, 2012-Ohio-1289,
-4-
Fayette CA2023-12-019
¶ 114 (12th Dist.). An appellate court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight
of the evidence only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against
the conviction. State v. Zitney, 2021-Ohio-466, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.). A determination that a
conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of
the issue of sufficiency. State v. Reeder, 2021-Ohio-2988, ¶ 31 (12th Dist.).
B. Analysis
{¶ 14} The sole issue in this case is the identity of the individual who was driving
the Charger. It is well established that to warrant a conviction, the evidence must
establish beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the accused as the person who
committed the crime. State v. Harner, 2020-Ohio-3071, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). To that end,
"[o]ne witness's testimony is enough to prove a fact of consequence." State v. Ruggles,
2020-Ohio-2886, ¶ 53 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 15} Here, Sergeant Burd testified that he has extensive training and experience
in identifying facial features, that he was able to pull alongside the driver's side window of
the Charger, and that he could clearly see the jawline and facial structure of the driver
when he turned to look at him. Although the window was tinted, it was not entirely opaque,
and Sergeant Burd testified that sunlight coming through the windshield of the Charger
further illuminated the driver's face. When the photograph of Mahmoud was later shown
to him, Sergeant Burd recognized that Mahmoud was the person he saw driving the
Charger. The jury did not clearly lose its way in finding Sergeant Burd's testimony
credible.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 16} Mahmoud's convictions were supported by the manifest weight of the
evidence, therefore we overrule his sole assignment of error.
-5-
Fayette CA2023-12-019
{¶ 17} Judgment affirmed.
BYRNE, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.
-6-