State v. Fork, 2023 Ohio 242

On August 23, 2020, Joshua Fork drove a Polaris utility vehicle with three passengers; the vehicle overturned and Travis Perkins suffered serious injuries.
Fork was indicted on five counts including aggravated vehicular assault (R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a)), two OVI counts, and tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12); one aggravated-vehicular-assault count was dismissed pretrial and remaining counts were renumbered.
At trial witnesses testified Fork had drunk alcohol that night (and a breath test later showed .178), passengers said Fork drove fast and righted the Polaris after the crash; Fork testified the Polaris was principally a farm/utility vehicle used for agricultural work.
The trial court instructed using the R.C. 4511.01 definition of “motor vehicle,” convicted Fork on all counts, and sentenced him to community control and jail time.
On appeal Fork challenged only (1) sufficiency of evidence for aggravated vehicular assault (arguing the Polaris is excluded from the statutory definition of motor vehicle and lack of proven causation), and (2) sufficiency for tampering (arguing no proof he moved or concealed the Polaris).
The Sixth District reversed and vacated Fork’s convictions for aggravated vehicular assault and tampering with evidence, concluding the Polaris is excluded from the statutory definition of “motor vehicle” under R.C. 4501.01 and the state failed to prove Fork removed the Polaris or otherwise committed tampering.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Polaris qualified as a “motor vehicle” for R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a)	The Polaris was used for transportation that night; jury instruction using R.C. 4511.01 was proper (OJI authority)	Polaris is a utility vehicle/farm machinery excluded from the definition of “motor vehicle” under R.C. 4501.01	R.C. 4501.01 governs penal statutes; Polaris fits R.C. 4501.01(VV) “utility vehicle” (principal purpose farm/utility use) and is excluded — aggravated vehicular assault conviction reversed
Whether evidence supported tampering with evidence (removing/concealing the Polaris)	State: Polaris was flipped upright, restarted, and later moved to a barn; Fork summoned others to conceal himself/Polaris	Fork: No evidence he physically moved the Polaris or called others to remove it	Insufficient evidence that Fork removed/concealed the Polaris or intended to impair evidence — tampering conviction reversed

State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (sets sufficiency review standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency: evidence must allow any rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (sufficiency is a question of law)
City of Wauseon v. Badenhop, 9 Ohio St.3d 152 (agricultural tractor excluded from “motor vehicle” definition)
Muenchenbach v. Preble County, 91 Ohio St.3d 141 (use-standard appropriate for construction-equipment exception to “motor vehicle”)
Putka v. City of Parma, 90 Ohio App.3d 647 (applied use test to determine whether construction equipment exception applied)
State v. Eikleberry, 184 Ohio App.3d 219 (interpreting unqualified exceptions and declining a use test where statutory language is broad)