DocketNumber: Case No. CT2003-0042.
Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 1564
Judges: WISE, J.
Filed Date: 3/25/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} On April 26, 2003, appellant was operating a Ford Contour in the exit driveway of the Muskingum County Raceway. As appellant pulled out into the lane of traffic on State Route 60, his Contour struck a Chevrolet Camaro heading south. Stopping for the accident only for a few seconds, appellant proceeded to drive to the parking lot of a bar called the Green Tea Room, about eight-tenths of a mile from the raceway's driveway. Witnesses followed appellant there and called police via a cell phone.
{¶ 3} Appellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (R.C.
{¶ 4} The jury found appellant found guilty on all three counts. Appellant was sentenced to 365 days in jail on the OMVI conviction and 180 days for driving under suspension, to be served consecutively, with ninety days suspended. Appellant was also fined $100 for failure to yield.
{¶ 5} Appellant timely appealed, and herein raises the following sole Assignment of Error:
{¶ 6} "I. Admitting into evidence and allowing the jury to view appellants [sic] certified driving record, which included his prior omvi convictions, despite the judge granting defense counsels [sic] motion in limine to exclude any reference to prior omvi convictions or omvi suspensions, was prejudicial error."
{¶ 8} The admission or exclusion of evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Sage (1987),
{¶ 9} Appellant was additionally charged with driving under suspension (DUS) in violation of former R.C.
{¶ 10} In support of his argument, appellant cites State v.Allen (1987),
{¶ 11} In the case sub judice, the driving record was not introduced for the purposes of penalty enhancement, but as part of the state's case to prove the elements of driving under suspension, thus distinguishing this case from the circumstances in Allen. In State v. Thorn (Oct. 6, 1999), Wayne App. No. 99CA0013, the Ninth District Court of Appeals addressed a similar issue in regard to a defendant who was charged with driving under suspension in violation of R.C.
{¶ 12} Although in the case sub judice we are herein dealing with a comparatively larger number of past OMVI convictions against appellant, we conclude, as in Thorn, that appellant's decision not to stipulate to the DUS charge created a situation in which the prosecutor had little choice but to submit the driving record evidence in support of the elements of driving under suspension. Nonetheless, appellant argues that the court's decision to disallow testimony concerning appellant's past driving record, yet allow the exhibit containing appellant'scomplete unredacted driving record to go to the jury, was contradictory and prejudicial. Appellant's Brief at 8. The trial court explained its decision as follows:
{¶ 13} "That document I'm going to let in as is without redacting anything out because the document itself is authenticating. It is an official document from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, so although I think you didn't get the testimony, I mean, you were able to keep the testimony out for that purpose. That is an official document of the defendant's driving record, and I think the statute does provide for it to come in as is." Tr. at 186.
{¶ 14} It thus appears the basis for the allowance of the exhibit was the court's reluctance to redact portions of a BMV records exhibit certified with the seal of the Motor Vehicle Registrar of Ohio. However, because we find the introduction of the exhibit harmless error under the facts of this case, we need not reach the issue of whether some level of redaction would have been proper. In order to determine whether the admission of evidence of prior convictions is prejudicial, an appellate court evaluates the relationship between that evidence and the totality of other evidence properly introduced by the prosecution at trial. State v. Werfel, Lake App. Nos. 2002-L-101, 2002-L-102, 2003-Ohio-6958, ¶ 43, citing State v. Moissis, Lake App. No. 2000-L-187, 2002-Ohio-4955, ¶ 46. If there is other overwhelming evidence of guilt, the admission of the testimony regarding the facts of the past convictions will be deemed harmless error. Id., citing State v. Henton (1997),
{¶ 15} The record reveals the detailed testimony of State Trooper Sean Eitel, who responded to the scene. Trooper Eitel observed and conversed with appellant at the Green Tea Room parking lot, and initiated a field sobriety test, the results of which appellant does not presently dispute. Terry Brock, who was also leaving the raceway on the night in question and was right behind appellant's vehicle, testified that the Contour was being driven by a person with a yellow sweatshirt and a ball cap, and that a female with long hair was in the passenger seat. Tr. at 107. Brock took off after the Contour after the collision. Because of traffic, Brock had to turn around and come back after seeing the Contour at the Green Tea Room, a process which took less than a minute. Tr. at 113. Brock then observed a man with a yellow shirt and ball cap getting out of the Contour. Id. Brock identified the man in the yellow shirt as the appellant at trial. Tr. at 119.
{¶ 16} In addition, Brock's brother-in-law, Henry Hogg, who was riding in Brock's vehicle, testified he saw a man with a baseball cap and "a bright yellow sweatshirt" driving the Contour. Tr. at 133. Hogg, who placed the cell phone call to police, then saw this individual standing by the Contour's driver's side door at the bar parking lot as Brock's car arrived. Tr. at 139. Hogg likewise identified this man as appellant. Id.
{¶ 17} Appellant's sole defense at trial was that he was not the driver of the Contour, but that it was his girlfriend, Angela Miller. Miller testified accordingly as a defense witness, although she admitted that she and appellant had taken a cooler of beer to the raceway that night, and that she had consumed "more than two, less than ten probably." Tr. at 199. We note Miller also recalled appellant wearing a yellow sweatshirt and baseball cap. Tr. at 202. Upon review, we find the admission of the driving record evidence to be harmless error due to the overwhelming evidence, in the record, establishing that appellant was driving the Contour as it exited the raceway, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 18} Appellant's sole Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
{¶ 19} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the County Court of Muskingum County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
Hoffman, P.J., and Farmer, J., concur.