State v. Reavis, 2012 Ohio 4675

Appellant Jessica Reavis, also known as Revis, was convicted of speeding under R.C. 4511.21(D) in Morrow County Municipal Court.
The stop occurred August 25, 2011, before the effective date of R.C. 4511.091(C).
R.C. 4511.091(C) became effective September 30, 2011 and bars conviction based on unaided visual speed estimation.
The Municipal Court convicted Reavis December 11, 2011 after the statute became effective, and held it not retroactive and thus inapplicable, relying on Barberton v. Jenney for sufficiency of unaided visual estimates.
Reavis appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, challenging the trial court’s legal ruling.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Municipal Court judgment, holding that R.C. 4511.091(C) applies prospectively to Reavis’s conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 4511.091(C) applies to Reavis’s conviction.	State contends retroactivity not required; statute applies.	Reavis argues statute should not apply to prior conviction or retroactively.	Statute applies prospectively to the conviction.
Whether the conviction based on unaided visual estimation was permissible.	State relied on unaided visual estimate per preexisting standard.	Reavis challenges use of unaided estimate given new statute.	Court requires applying the statute, affecting the conviction.
Effect of retroactivity/prospectivity on the case.	State seeks applicability of statute as written.	Reavis argues retroactivity may be limited.	Court held the statute applies prospectively.

Barberton v. Jenney, 126 Ohio St.3d 5 (2010-Ohio-2420) (addressed sufficiency of officer’s unaided speed estimation under prior law)
Re: Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (2012-Ohio-236) (statutory construction; interpret statute as a whole to give effect to every word)
In re Estate of Centorbi, 129 Ohio St.3d 78 (2011-Ohio-2267) (statutory interpretation guidance for plain meaning and effect of words)