State v. Allsup
2011 Ohio 404
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Allsup was convicted by a Hardin County jury of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, felonious assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon, vandalism, and operating a vehicle while under the influence; sentence imposed was 10 years 6 months consecutive to other terms.
- The incident began April 3, 2009, when Officer Deckling pursued a pickup truck driven by Allsup’s brother, Wayne Allsup, after informing Wayne of an arrest warrant.
- Wayne fled in the truck; Allsup rammed Deckling’s cruiser during a high-speed chase, injuring Deckling and prompting a multi-agency pursuit.
- During the pursuit, Wayne tossed various objects at Deckling’s cruiser; stop sticks deflated the truck’s tire; Allsup eventually abandoned the chase and parked at a cousin’s residence, where Allsup and Wayne were apprehended.
- Allsup’s insanity plea was entered and competency evaluations were conducted; after pretrial rulings and motions, a jury found Allsup guilty on all counts on March 18, 2010; appellate assignments of error followed challenging evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency, juror for-cause, and sentencing.
- The court’s decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion on evidentiary rulings and for sufficiency of evidence; the court ultimately affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding blackout-related testimony | Allsup argues the witnesses’ testimony supported a blackout defense | Allsup contends the testimony showed memory loss due to head injury | No abuse of discretion; testimony insufficient to prove unconscious blackout; evidence properly excluded |
| Whether the voluntary intoxication instruction was appropriate | Allsup argues instruction implied intoxication unsupported by defense | Instruction clarifies culpability under statutes; not a defense instruction | No abuse of discretion; instruction properly framed culpability; not prejudicial to Allsup |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict of felonious assault with a deadly weapon | Prosecution proved the truck rammed the cruiser causing injury | Allsup contends the use of the vehicle did not constitute use of a deadly weapon | Sufficient evidence; vehicle can be a deadly weapon; rational trier could find elements met |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying juror Grappy for cause | Grappy’s Work with law enforcement could bias the jury | State employee alone not automatic disqualification; no actual bias shown | No abuse of discretion; no demonstrated presumption of partiality |
| Whether Allsup’s sentence was improper or disproportionate to Wayne’s | Sentence should be lower due to Allsup’s lesser criminal history | Role in offense and individual circumstances justify sentence; within ranges | No abuse of discretion; sentences within statutory ranges and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings; trust trial court judgment)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (abuse-of-discretion standard applied to evidentiary decisions)
- Pons v. Ohio St. Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (abuse-of-discretion standard; appellate restraint in substitution of judgment)
- State v. Gutierrez, 3rd Dist. No. 5-95-10 (1995) (blackout defense not established without unconsciousness)
- State v. Gibson, 2008-Ohio-410 (9th Dist.) (auto as deadly weapon; vehicle use can satisfy statute)