State v. Harris
2017 Ohio 5594
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Officer observed Mason Angilo Harris, Jr. make an improper lane movement, stopped him, smelled alcohol, and Harris admitted drinking two beers; Harris refused field sobriety and chemical (breath) tests.
- Harris was cited on multiple charges: driving with suspended license, disobeying traffic control device, and two separate OVI counts under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) (basic OVI) and R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) (OVI with prior conviction and refusal).
- Before trial the state offered a certified judgment of a 2015 prior OVI conviction; Harris did not object and the court and counsel discussed admission/stipulation in open court.
- Jury was instructed to treat the two OVI charges as separate and to decide each independently; the jury asked during deliberations whether one charge depended on the other and the court reiterated separation.
- The jury acquitted Harris of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) but convicted him of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2). Harris moved under Crim.R. 29(C) for judgment of acquittal (arguing verdicts were inconsistent) and later raised that the state failed to prove the prior OVI; both motions were denied.
- Harris appealed the denial (C-160279); two additional appeals for the other traffic convictions were dismissed for failure to assign error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inconsistent verdicts (acquittal on basic OVI but conviction on OVI-with-refusal-and-prior) require acquittal on the A(2) charge | State: verdicts on separate counts may stand when each count is supported by sufficient evidence | Harris: acquittal on A(1)(a) negates essential element (operation while under influence) of A(2), so conviction on A(2) is inconsistent | Court: counts are independent; A(2) has additional elements (refusal and prior) and may stand despite acquittal on A(1)(a) |
| Whether jury-instruction or verdict-form defects could support Crim.R. 29(C) relief | State: Crim.R. 29(C) tests sufficiency of evidence, not trial-instruction or form errors | Harris: alleged defective instruction/ form on A(2) undermined conviction | Court: such errors are not cognizable via Crim.R. 29; they are trial errors appropriate for new-trial relief, not acquittal |
| Whether the state proved the prior OVI element of A(2) beyond a reasonable doubt | State: introduced certified judgment and secured defendant’s stipulation/acceptance in open court | Harris: contends state produced no witness to identify the prior conviction as his person | Court: Harris stipulated in open court and referenced the prior OVI; stipulation satisfies proof of prior conviction; no plain error shown |
| Whether appeals of the other two traffic convictions should proceed | State: appeals must present assignments of error | Harris: did not raise assignments of error for those appeals | Court: appeals C-160280 and C-160281 dismissed for abandonment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 38 N.E.3d 860 (Ohio 2015) (plain-error standard for unpreserved Crim.R. 29 claims explained)
- Lovejoy v. State, 79 Ohio St.3d 440, 683 N.E.2d 1112 (Ohio 1997) (verdicts on separate counts are independent; inconsistency across counts is not reversible)
- Browning v. State, 120 Ohio St. 62, 165 N.E. 566 (Ohio 1929) (a verdict is to be construed in light of the count designated)
- Hoover v. State, 123 Ohio St.3d 418, 916 N.E.2d 1056 (Ohio 2009) (elements of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2): operation while under influence, refusal to submit to chemical test, and prior OVI conviction)
- Bridgeman v. State, 55 Ohio St.2d 261, 381 N.E.2d 184 (Ohio 1978) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)
- Post v. State, 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 513 N.E.2d 754 (Ohio 1987) (agreements or stipulations made in open court by defendant or counsel are binding)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1932) (jury verdicts need not be rationally consistent; inconsistent outcomes do not mandate reversal)