State v. McKay
2014 Ohio 2027
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On May 29, 2013, Trooper Westhoven observed Ted McKay on I-275 and visually estimated his speed at 80 mph in a 65 mph zone; an Ultralyte laser then recorded speeds of 78, 78, and 79 mph.
- At bench trial, the trooper testified he calibrated the laser and it was working but could not identify the device model or whether it was the LTI 20-20, and he disclaimed being an expert on speed-measuring devices.
- McKay moved for acquittal arguing the court could not judicially notice the Ultralyte’s scientific reliability because the trooper did not establish the device model and prior testimony relied on by the court addressed only the LTI 20-20.
- The trial court took judicial notice of a 2006 municipal-court expert transcript (believed to be Schumacher) and found McKay guilty; McKay later showed that transcript addressed the LTI 20-20, not the Ultralyte.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred in judicially noticing the Ultralyte’s reliability based on testimony about a different device, and that the trooper’s unaided visual estimate is insufficient under R.C. 4511.091(C).
- Result: conviction reversed and McKay discharged from further prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | McKay's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly judicially noticed the scientific accuracy and reliability of the Ultralyte laser device | Trial court could judicially notice device reliability by relying on prior local-court expert testimony | Judicial notice improper because prior testimony addressed the LTI 20-20, not the Ultralyte; trooper failed to identify model or link devices | Not proper — prior testimony addressed a different device; judicial notice was unsupported, so the Ultralyte readings were inadmissible |
| Whether an officer’s unaided visual speed estimate alone can support a speeding conviction | The state submitted the case on the trooper’s testimony (including visual estimate and laser readings) | Visual estimate alone cannot support conviction because R.C. 4511.091(C) prohibits convictions based solely on unaided visual estimation | Insufficient — post-R.C. 4511.091(C), the trooper’s unaided visual estimate was legally insufficient to sustain conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Barberton v. Jenney, 126 Ohio St.3d 5 (2010) (Ohio Supreme Court recognized conviction may rest on officer’s trained visual speed estimate)
- Levine v. Cincinnati, 158 Ohio App.3d 657 (2004) (trial court may judicially notice scientific reliability of a speed-measuring device under appropriate foundation)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for assessing sufficiency of evidence to uphold a conviction)