2018 Ohio 4706
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Nov. 30, 2017, Cleveland police (Detective Christopher Allen, plainclothes, unmarked car) stopped Antoine (Antione) Davis after observing him make a right turn at the intersection of E. 71st St. and Harvard Ave. Allen alleged the turn was on a red light during hours when right-on-red is prohibited.
- After the stop Allen cited Davis for: failing to obey a traffic-control device (illegal right turn), improper window tint, and failure to display a front license plate.
- At the bench trial Davis (pro se) denied making the turn on red, disputed the officers’ observation of a missing front plate, and did not cross-examine Allen. He claimed the officers never saw the front plate and challenged enforcement by plainclothes officers in unmarked cars.
- The municipal court found Davis guilty of the illegal right turn and failure to display a front license plate, not guilty of the tint violation, and imposed fines (stayed pending appeal).
- On appeal Davis raised (1) that Allen was incompetent to testify because he was plainclothes/in an unmarked car enforcing traffic laws, and (2) insufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. The Eighth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of witness to testify (officer in plain clothes/unmarked car) | Allen competent because his primary duty that shift was Vice/drug enforcement, not traffic enforcement | Allen was enforcing traffic laws while in plain clothes and an unmarked car, so he was incompetent to testify under Evid.R. 601(C) / R.C. 4549.14 | Court: Overruled — officer's main duty that shift was vice/drug enforcement, so he need not be in marked vehicle/uniform to be competent to testify |
| Sufficiency of evidence for illegal right turn (turn on red during prohibited hours) | Allen’s testimony established he observed Davis turn on red during the prohibited time and had a clear view of the red signal | Davis argued there was no proof of the prohibited hours or that he entered the intersection after the light turned red | Court: Overruled — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, Allen’s testimony was sufficient to support conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for failure to display front license plate | City relied on Allen’s observation that there was no front plate | Davis claimed he had a front plate and officers didn’t view the front of the vehicle | Court: Affirmed — record contains no basis to overturn the plate conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Huth, 24 Ohio St.3d 114, 493 N.E.2d 961 (Ohio 1986) (interpreting "on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing" to refer to officer’s overall duty period)
- Columbus v. Stump, 41 Ohio App.2d 81, 322 N.E.2d 348 (10th Dist. 1974) (same principle on main purpose of duty)
- State v. Butler, 77 Ohio App.3d 143, 601 N.E.2d 510 (4th Dist. 1991) (officer not required to be in marked vehicle/uniform if main duty was not traffic enforcement)
- Dayton v. Rogers, 60 Ohio St.2d 162, 398 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio 1979) (not guilty plea in nonjury trial functions as Crim.R. 29 motion)
- State v. Lazzaro, 76 Ohio St.3d 261, 667 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio 1996) (overruling on other grounds cited for procedural rule)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (standard for sufficiency review and distinction from manifest-weight review)