Cleveland v. Taylor, 2013 Ohio 4708

Kenneth S. Taylor was cited on December 5, 2012 for violating Cleveland Codified Ordinance § 698A.01 (ticket scalping outside permitted zone); he pled not guilty and proceeded pro se to a bench trial.
Officer Derrick Davis testified he observed Taylor selling tickets on the sidewalk at East 4th and Prospect, outside permissive sales areas, and that he had repeatedly warned Taylor to move before issuing the citation.
The municipal court found Taylor guilty, imposed a $100 fine and costs, and Taylor appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
On appeal Taylor raised ten assignments of error: arguing constitutional infirmities (First Amendment, equal protection, overbreadth), jurisdictional and citation defects, insufficiency of evidence, and improper limitation of cross-examination.
The appellate court concluded Taylor waived his constitutional challenges by failing to raise them below and declined to address several assignments that lacked substantive legal argument or citations.
On the merits the court held the citation was sufficient, Officer Davis’s testimony supplied sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination (Taylor made no proffer).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/waiver of constitutional challenge	City tacitly defends ordinance; trial court proceeded properly	Taylor: §698A.01 violates First Amendment, equal protection, and is overbroad	Waived: Taylor failed to raise constitutionality in trial court; appellate court declines to consider it
Sufficiency of evidence	City: Officer Davis’s testimony established elements of the ordinance violation	Taylor: City failed to prove offense beyond a reasonable doubt	Held for City: Viewing evidence in favor of prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find elements proven
Sufficiency of citation	City: Citation described offense and cited section number	Taylor: Citation was defective (signature/affidavit issues; insufficient description)	Held for City: Citation apprised defendant of nature of charge and cited §698A.01; therefore sufficient
Limitation on cross-examination	City: Objection to impeachment on collateral prior citation was proper	Taylor: Court prevented impeachment of Officer Davis, abusing discretion	Held for City: Trial court within Evid.R. 611 discretion; Taylor made no proffer as required by Gilmore, so no reversible error

State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (failure to raise constitutional challenge at trial waives claim on appeal)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Gilmore, 28 Ohio St.3d 190 (Ohio 1986) (party must proffer excluded evidence or show substance from context to preserve error)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (trial court has broad discretion in admitting/excluding evidence; reversal only for abuse causing material prejudice)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
Cleveland Hts. v. Perryman, 8 Ohio App.3d 443 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (traffic/ticket citation must apprise defendant of nature of charge and cite ordinance)
Bellville v. Kieffaber, 114 Ohio St.3d 124 (Ohio 2007) (case citation supporting what information a citation must contain)