State v. Castagnola, 2015 Ohio 4752

On July 9, 2015, Nicholas Castagnola was cited for driving 97 mph in a 70 mph zone on I‑71 by Trooper Paul Green; Castagnola pled not guilty and moved to exclude certain evidence.
At a July 24, 2015 bench trial Trooper Green testified he was in a marked Ohio State Highway Patrol cruiser (2014 Dodge Charger) with highway insignia, reflective tape, and a blue light on top, and that the location was at the 183 milepost on I‑71 in a rural area with three lanes each way and a median.
The trial court found Castagnola guilty of speeding (R.C. 4511.21(D)(4)), concluded his driving was reckless given speed and circumstances, suspended his license for one year under R.C. 4510.15, and fined him.
Castagnola appealed, arguing (1) improper admission of Ultralyte laser speed testimony because Trooper Green was allegedly not in a vehicle marked under R.C. 4549.13, (2) an ex post facto/constitutional problem with the court’s recklessness finding and resulting suspension, and (3) insufficient evidence that the offense occurred on a "rural freeway."
The appellate court reviewed (a) the trial court’s discretion to admit testimony and witness competency under R.C. 4549.13–.14, (b) the standard for imposing a license suspension under R.C. 4510.15 and the statutory definition of recklessness, and (c) sufficiency of the evidence under the Jenks standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Castagnola)	Held
1. Admissibility / witness competency under R.C. 4549.13–.14 for laser speed testimony	Trooper Green was in a marked cruiser; testimony about speed device was admissible	Trooper Green was not a competent witness because the cruiser lacked a statutorily required flashing/rotating blue light	Court: admission proper; ample evidence cruiser was marked; no abuse of discretion
2. License suspension under R.C. 4510.15 based on recklessness (constitutional/ex post facto claim)	Speed (97 mph), dark/rural conditions, presence of other traffic and a pass supported reckless indifference and suspension	Court’s recklessness finding retroactively punished beyond what law allowed / violated ex post facto and Due Process	Court: ex post facto not implicated; trial court did not abuse discretion finding recklessness; suspension upheld
3. Sufficiency of evidence that offense occurred on a "rural freeway" (R.C. 4511.21(B)(14))	Trooper located the offense at I‑71 milepost 183, posted limit 70 mph, rural setting, three lanes each direction and median	Alleged failure to prove the location qualified as a rural freeway for the 70 mph limit	Court: evidence sufficient under Jenks; conviction supported

Waganheim v. Alexander Grant & Co., 19 Ohio App.3d 7, 482 N.E.2d 955 (discretion to admit witness testimony)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 404 N.E.2d 144 (definition of abuse of discretion)
Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (ex post facto prohibition principles)
Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277 (historical ex post facto discussion)
State v. Tamburin, 145 Ohio App.3d 774, 764 N.E.2d 503 (standard for reviewing R.C. 4510.15 license suspensions)
State v. Newkirk, 21 Ohio App.2d 160, 255 N.E.2d 851 (speeding as a prohibition "relating to reckless operation" permitting suspension)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (sufficiency of the evidence standard)