State v. Delong
2016 Ohio 4871
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On Feb. 15, 2016, Aaron P. DeLong was cited for speeding (83 mph in a 70 mph zone) and proceeded pro se to a bench trial in Morrow County Municipal Court.
- The State’s sole witness, OSP Trooper Kamal Nelson, testified he used a Series II Python Radar and provided visual and radar speed readings; he also testified about his training and the device’s calibration.
- DeLong did not cross-examine or object during the State’s case, offered no evidence, and moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 at the close of the State’s case; the court denied the motion.
- DeLong also requested a hearing under Evid.R. 201(e) concerning judicial notice of the radar device; the trial court denied that motion as well.
- DeLong appealed, arguing (1) the trial court improperly took judicial notice of the radar device’s reliability without expert proof, (2) the prosecution presented new evidence after resting, and (3) the court wrongly denied the Evid.R. 201(e) hearing.
- The appellate court treated the arguments together, found DeLong waived objections by failing to timely object, and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial notice of radar device reliability | State relied on Trooper Nelson’s testimony to prove speed and device operation | DeLong: court erred by accepting judicial notice of the Python Series II without expert testimony or prior judicial findings on device reliability | Court: DeLong waived challenge by failing to timely object; no error in denying post-rest Crim.R.29 motion |
| Presentation of new evidence after State rested | State: testimony and calibration evidence were part of the State’s case | DeLong: prosecution introduced new evidence after resting | Court: no reversible error; DeLong did not object contemporaneously and waived the complaint |
| Denial of Evid.R. 201(e) hearing | State: Evid.R. 201 applies to adjudicative facts, not evidentiary issues about device reliability | DeLong: requested hearing under Evid.R.201(e) on judicial notice of device | Court: Evid.R.201 pertains to adjudicative facts; denial was not erroneous |
| Crim.R.29 motion (sufficiency) | State: Trooper’s radar and testimony sufficiently proved speeding | DeLong: moved for acquittal at close of State’s case | Court: Crim.R.29 tests sufficiency; construing evidence for State, reasonable minds could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; motion properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridgeman v. State, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (standard for sufficiency review under Crim.R.29)
- White v. State, 65 Ohio App.3d 564 (de novo review of Crim.R.29 denial)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)