State v. Hoffmeyer
2014 Ohio 3578
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Sept. 25, 2012, Akron officers responded to a maroon pickup that had crashed into a guardrail in a Sheetz parking lot; no driver was in the truck and a man (Hoffmeyer) was seen running and was detained nearby.
- Officers detected strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, stumbling, and glassy/watery eyes; Hoffmeyer said a woman had been driving but could not identify her.
- Deputies obtained Sheetz surveillance video, reviewed it at the scene and later placed a copy into evidence; the video showed the truck entering the lot, crashing, and contained angles identifying the driver and time stamps.
- Hoffmeyer was indicted for OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) as a fourth-degree felony based on a stipulated fact that he had five prior OVI convictions within 20 years; the State played portions of the surveillance video at trial.
- The jury convicted Hoffmeyer of OVI and found the prior-convictions specification true; the court imposed 1 year for the OVI and 4 years for the specification (consecutive), plus lifetime license suspension.
- On appeal Hoffmeyer raised three assignments: (1) videotape admission error (hearsay/authentication/lay opinion), (2) defective verdict form / Pelfrey issue as to felony degree, and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to challenge felony sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hoffmeyer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of surveillance video (hearsay/authentication/lay opinion) | Video admissible; officers personally viewed scene, authenticated tape as accurate, jury to weigh it | Video is hearsay requiring business‑records custodian; not properly authenticated; officers gave improper lay opinions about video | Court affirmed: video not hearsay (nonverbal conduct not an assertion), sufficiently authenticated under pictorial‑testimony (officers observed scene and verified tape), and lay‑opinion claim was undeveloped/non‑preserved |
| Verdict form / degree of offense under R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) and Pelfrey | Verdict/instructions and separate specification tracked statutory element (five prior OVIs); foreperson clarified wording mistake | Jury used word "GUILTY" in prior‑conviction line causing non‑unanimous/written defect, so sentence should be misdemeanor | Court rejected Pelfrey challenge: form tracked statutory aggravating element; the jurors clarified intended meaning and polling confirmed unanimity; clerical/grammatical error did not void the finding |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to felony sentence | N/A (State defends conviction/sentence) | Counsel was deficient for not arguing sentencing only as first‑degree misdemeanor, which would have affected outcome | Court held no ineffective assistance: no prejudice because verdict and specification were valid, so objection would not have changed result |
Key Cases Cited
- Midland Steel Prods. Co. v. U.A.W. Local 486, 61 Ohio St.3d 121 (1991) (sets out pictorial‑testimony and silent‑witness theories for authenticating photographic/video evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St.3d 422 (2007) (jury verdict must state degree or that aggravating element is present)
- State v. Davie, 80 Ohio St.3d 311 (1997) (clerical/verdict form errors may be harmless where intent is clear)
- Kniep, 87 Ohio App.3d 681 (1993) (nonverbal conduct is hearsay only if intended as an assertion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)