State v. Nastal, 2022 Ohio 970

Background

On Aug. 3, 2019, Lawrence Nastal, driving a loaded 18-wheeler with cruise control engaged around 60 mph, struck multiple vehicles in a construction zone on I-280 after braking only seconds before impact; three people died and two were seriously injured.
Nastal was indicted on 10 counts (aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular assault counts; some alleging conduct in a construction zone).
The prosecution dismissed five construction-zone counts before deliberations; the jury was instructed on aggravated vehicular assault (and misdemeanor vehicular homicide as a lesser-included) for the remaining counts.
Jury convicted Nastal of misdemeanor vehicular homicide on three counts (lesser-included) and vehicular assault on two counts.
Nastal moved for acquittal arguing insufficiency and inconsistency (negligence, not recklessness); trial court denied the motion and sentenced him to concurrent 180-day jail terms on misdemeanors, two years community control on felonies, and a three‑year driver’s-license suspension.
On appeal Nastal raised three assignments: (1) insufficiency of evidence for recklessness on the vehicular assault counts, (2) manifest-weight challenge to those convictions, and (3) trial court plain‑error in failing to instruct on negligent assault as a lesser included offense.

Issues

Issue	Nastal (appellant)	State (appellee)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on negligent assault as a lesser‑included offense of vehicular assault	Trial court should have given negligent‑assault instruction (vehicle can be a deadly weapon; jury needed lesser option)	Negligent assault requires an element (deadly weapon/dangerous ordnance) that vehicular assault does not; no evidence truck was used/possessed as a weapon	Court: Negligent assault is not a lesser‑included offense of vehicular assault because it adds the "deadly weapon" element requiring use/possession as a weapon; no plain error in refusing instruction.
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove recklessness for vehicular assault (Counts 9–10)	Conduct was negligent (not reckless); jury’s mixed findings show insufficiency; Nastal testified he didn’t perceive risk	Evidence (construction signs, slowed/stopped traffic, eyewitnesses, black‑box data showing cruise control at ~60 mph until seconds before impact) permitted a rational jury to find recklessness	Court: Evidence was sufficient to prove recklessness; sufficiency challenge denied.
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence (recklessness)	Verdicts are against the manifest weight; jury’s differing verdicts show error	Different counts can yield different outcomes; the record (speed, cruise control, late braking, heavy load, stopped traffic) supports recklessness	Court: Not against the manifest weight; jury did not clearly lose its way.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain‑error review for unrequested jury instructions)
State v. Mohamed, 151 Ohio St.3d 320 (standards for plain‑error reversal)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (plain‑error framework)
State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (discussion of lesser‑included offense analysis)
State v. Lovejoy, 79 Ohio St.3d 440 (multiple‑count verdicts and inconsistent‑verdict principles)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (inconsistent verdicts across different counts do not justify reversal)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (sufficiency standard and manifest‑weight distinction)
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution for sufficiency review)
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (manifest‑weight review principles)