State v. Houston, 2018 Ohio 2788

Jay H. Houston was charged with violating R.C. 4511.202 (failure to control) after his rented 26-foot box truck left I-77 north, entered the grass median, rolled and sustained heavy damage in a single-vehicle crash at 4:25 a.m.
Trooper testified there were no skid marks on the pavement, tire tracks in the grass indicated tires were rolling (not braking) when the truck left the road, and he found no blood or fur on the truck; photographs corroborated the scene.
Houston testified a deer ran into the road from the right; he swerved left into the median and lost control. He could not recall braking and estimated his speed at 60–70 mph.
The trial court convicted Houston after concluding a deer crossing in rural Ohio is foreseeable and therefore cannot constitute a "sudden emergency" as an affirmative defense; Houston paid fine and costs and filed a delayed appeal.
On appeal, the court reviewed sufficiency and manifest-weight arguments and whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding that a deer can never be a sudden emergency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Houston)	Held
1. Sufficiency of evidence to convict under R.C. 4511.202	Evidence (trooper testimony, photos, tire tracks) supports that Houston was not in reasonable control	Defense argued sudden emergency; also argued insufficiency/asked for acquittal	Conviction supported: sufficient evidence that Houston lacked reasonable control
2. Manifest weight of the evidence	Trooper was credible; facts support verdict	Houston's testimony and sudden-emergency defense weigh against conviction	No miscarriage of justice; trial court did not clearly lose its way on guilt determination
3. Whether a deer running into roadway can be a "sudden emergency" excusing statutory violation	Court below held wild animal crossing in rural area is foreseeable and thus not a sudden emergency	Houston: a deer can create an emergency over which driver has no control and may excuse statutory noncompliance	Reversed on this issue: a deer may, depending on facts, constitute a sudden emergency; trial court erred as matter of law to bar the defense per se and case remanded for the trial court to evaluate the affirmative defense on the merits

Oechsle v. Hart, 12 Ohio St.2d 29 (Ohio 1967) (defines sudden-emergency legal-excuse principles and limits self-created emergencies)
Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co., 146 Ohio St. 657 (Ohio 1946) (legal excuse must be something making compliance impossible or an emergency not of driver's making)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
City of Dayton v. Rogers, 60 Ohio St.2d 162 (Ohio 1979) (in bench trials plea of not guilty preserves sufficiency arguments; Crim.R. 29 context)
State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180 (Ohio 1998) (circumstantial evidence has same probative value as direct evidence)