Cleveland v. Craig
2013 Ohio 5742
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Craig was convicted of speeding in a school zone under Cleveland Codified Ordinances 433.03 (third-degree misdemeanor).
- Officer Herrera testified Craig was speeding at 32 mph in a school zone where limit is 20 mph; radar clocked 32 mph when vehicle stationary.
- Officer Herrera had a Genesis II radar unit, certified and calibrated daily; no objections raised to qualifications or calibration records.
- LEADS provided Craig’s driving record, showing two prior moving violations within 12 months; City introduced a certified LEADS printout.
- Craig testified she believed speed limit was 35 mph and she was not speeding; she admitted going about 20 mph.
- Trial court found Craig guilty and imposed a $200 fine plus costs; Craig appealed arguing radar testimony was improper and LEADS printout was inadmissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether radar reading admitted without expert testimony complies with Ferell. | Craig argues moving-radar reliability requires expert evidence or notice. | Craig contends no justification for relying on radar without testifying about device reliability. | No plain error; stationary radar readings may be admitted without expert testimony. |
| Whether LEADS printout is admissible as public record/prima facie evidence. | City asserts LEADS printout is self-authenticating public record. | Craig challenges admissibility of printout as evidence of prior convictions. | LEADS printout properly authenticated; admissible as public record. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ferell, 168 Ohio St. 298 (Ohio 1958) (readings of radar speed meters may be admitted without expert testimony for stationary devices)
- Tisdale v. State, 2008-Ohio-2807 (8th Dist.) (judicial notice and reliability of speed devices may be treated based on device calibration and operator qualifications)
- State v. Sevayega, 2013-Ohio-589 (8th Dist.) (recognizes that stationary radar evidence may support conviction without expert testimony)
- State v. Davis, 2005-Ohio-4877 (6th Dist.) (self-authenticating, properly sealed BMV records admissible)
- Cleveland Metro. Park Dist. v. Schillinger, 1997-Ohio App. LEXIS 3998 (8th Dist.) (LEADS printout admissible; authentication by officer)
- State v. Levine, 158 Ohio App.3d 657 (Ohio 2004) (judicial notice considerations for public records)