2018 Ohio 1132
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. deputy observed a blue Honda commit multiple lane violations (last violation: both passenger-side tires crossed the fog line) and initiated a traffic stop.
- Deputy observed appellant Cody D. Capps appear nervous and attempt to hide something; Capps said he had not been drinking and was returning from work.
- Officer administered standardized field sobriety tests: HGN 6/6 clues, vertical gaze 0 clues, one-leg stand 3–4 clues, walk-and-turn 5 clues; officer arrested Capps for OVI and cited him for failure to drive within marked lanes.
- Consent vehicle search found a rolled dollar bill with white powder, a prescription bottle with a few Suboxone (buprenorphine) tablets, loose half tablets, and empty Coricidin blister packs; Capps admitted crushing and ingesting/snorting pills.
- Urine screen tested positive for buprenorphine. At bench trial the court found Capps guilty of OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)) and failure to drive in marked lanes (R.C. 4511.33(A)(1)); sentence stayed pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Capps' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim.R. 29 acquittal was required / sufficiency of evidence for OVI | Evidence (SFST results, HGN, admissions about drug use, paraphernalia, positive urine) was sufficient for conviction | Evidence insufficient to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt; trial court erred in denying Crim.R.29 | Affirmed; reasonable minds could find elements proven, Crim.R.29 properly denied |
| Whether conviction was against the sufficiency of the evidence (appellate review) | Same sufficiency showing as above supports conviction on record | Conviction not supported by sufficient evidence | Affirmed; reviewing standard (Jenks/Jackson) met in favor of prosecution |
| Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Credibility and weight favored trial court given tests, admissions, and toxicology | Verdict against manifest weight; trial court lost its way | Affirmed; appellant failed to develop argument and record weight did not compel reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261, 381 N.E.2d 184 (Ohio 1978) (Crim.R.29 standard: acquittal improper if reasonable minds could reach different conclusions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review follows Jackson v. Virginia)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (criminal conviction must be supportable by sufficient evidence such that any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (manifest-weight review: reversal only in exceptional cases where evidence weighs heavily against conviction)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (clarifies distinction between sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- Kremer v. Cox, 114 Ohio App.3d 41, 682 N.E.2d 1006 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (appellate briefs must present developed argument and citations; failure is ordinarily fatal)