2018 Ohio 1510
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Cynthia May was charged after a parking-lot altercation at a Cleveland bar culminated in her vehicle colliding with several cars, injuring multiple people.
- Surveillance video showed May’s car speeding, swerving, and striking the victims’ vehicle; May’s car flipped and she briefly left the scene but was returned.
- Witnesses and May testified she had consumed alcoholic beverages that night; some witnesses described impairment (staggering), others said she was only upset.
- Officers at the scene observed glassy eyes and an odor of alcohol; May refused breath and blood testing and told a detective she was unconscious during the collision.
- Trial court convicted May of six counts of felonious assault, two counts of aggravated vehicular assault (R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a)), and one OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)); court imposed concurrent prison terms totaling two years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)) and aggravated vehicular assault (R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a)) | State: Circumstantial and direct evidence (video of dangerous driving, witness testimony of drinking and staggering, officers’ observations, and refusal to test) supports a finding of impairment. | May: Evidence was insufficient—only glassy eyes and odor; some witnesses said she was not intoxicated; no blood/breath results. | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find May was impaired. |
| Consistency of convictions for intentional felonious assault and impairment-based assault | State: Impairment and a knowingly committed act are not mutually exclusive; evidence supported both mental states. | May: Cannot be impaired and also act intentionally; inconsistent theories. | Rejected. Court held impairment does not negate the mental state required for felonious assault; impaired persons can still act knowingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (reasonable-doubt sufficiency test for evidence viewed in the light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180 (1998) (application of Jackson sufficiency standard)
- State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (2002) (credibility assessments are for the factfinder, not sufficiency review)
- State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118 (1991) (circumstantial evidence may alone sustain a conviction)
- Maumee v. Anistik, 69 Ohio St.3d 339 (1994) (lay-witness testimony and refusal to submit to testing can have probative value on intoxication)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (conviction based on legally insufficient evidence violates due process)
- Westerville v. Cunningham, 15 Ohio St.2d 121 (1968) (refusal to take chemical test may be probative of intoxication)