DocketNumber: Appellate Case No. 98-CA-10, Trial Court Case No. 97-TRD-S-OSP-1-2
Judges: MILLIGAN, J.:
Filed Date: 1/8/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Appellant was found guilty in a bench trial by the Miami County Municipal Court on charges of Speeding, R.C.
Defendant appeals, assigning three errors:
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR SPEEDING WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN THAT THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT ANY TESTIMONY REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THE PARTICULAR RADAR UNIT UTILIZED BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER.
THE STATE'S FAILURE TO PRESENT ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE RELIABILITY OF A MOVING K-55 RADAR UNIT CONSTITUTES PLAIN ERROR AND APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED AS A RESULT.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF HIS THIRD SPEEDING OFFENSE WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS ON THE BASIS OF EXHIBITS NEVER ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE.
We affirm.
The appellant was ticketed after the approaching officer "observed the Defendant's vehicle traveling at what appeared to be a high rate of speed * * * was in the left lane and appeared to be exceeding traffic. The posted speed limit for his size vehicle is 55 miles an hour and he was exceeding traffic — that's other cars — that appeared to be traveling at the regular speed as well" (Tr. 6).
He was clocked on K-55 radar at 66 miles per hour.
Although the officer testified as to his training and experience with the K-55 unit he did not testify, on direct or cross examination about calibration. No objection was raised and appellant is required to rely upon "plain error" to support his three assignments of error.