State v. Kareski
2012 Ohio 2173
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Kareski, a bartender, was charged with selling beer to an underage person after a DPS trainee purchased a Bud Lite at his Akron bar.
- The trial court excluded the State’s chemical analysis because the analyst could not testify, but it judicially noticed that Bud Lite is beer.
- Kareski moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 at close of State’s case and after the verdict; trial court denied and imposed sentence.
- On appeal, Kareski argues the court erred by judicially noticing that Bud Lite is beer and by failing to give a 201(G) instruction.
- The Ninth District sustains the assignment of error on the judicial-notice issue, but overrules challenges to sufficiency of evidence; the judgment is reversed in part and the case remanded for a new trial.
- Judgment: part affirmed, part reversed, remanded for new trial in light of the error regarding judicial notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was judicial notice properly taken that Bud Lite is beer under R.C. 4301.01(B)(2)? | Kareski argues the court erred by taking this judicial notice. | State asserts beer necessity was established by prosecution. | Sustained; judicial notice improper and no 201(G) instruction given. |
| Is the conviction supported by sufficient evidence of sale and of beer being involved? | Kareski contends insufficiency due to erroneous judicial notice. | State contends evidence suffices. | Overruled; evidence sufficient to sustain conviction despite error; remand for new trial on proper proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shaw, 2004-Ohio-5121 (7th Dist. 2004) (limits on judicial notice; DUI-related evidentiary standards?)
- Brewer v. State, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 (2009) (sufficiency after trial-court error; retrial permissible if evidence is sufficient.)
- Thompkins v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency review; de novo standard.)
- Jenks v. United States, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (established standard for reviewing evidence and inferences for sufficiency.)
- State v. Williams, 2009-Ohio-6955 (9th Dist.) (de novo sufficiency review; credibility not assessed; reasonable-inference rule.)
- Burks v. U.S., 437 U.S. 1 (1983) (harmless error and readjudication principles.)
- State v. Brewer, 2009-Ohio-593 (Ohio Supreme Court) (reversal on trial error; sufficiency analysis permits considering error.)
- Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (double jeopardy and retrial constraints; sufficiency after appellate reversal.)
- State v. Aiken, 2002-Ohio-6436 (Ohio Misc.2d) (judicial notice issues in criminal trials.)