State v. Scott
2013 Ohio 4599
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Charles Scott was indicted on multiple counts after an incident on July 15, 2012; a jury acquitted him of felonious assault and criminal trespass but convicted him of criminal damaging and two counts of failure to comply with police (R.C. 2921.331(B)), plus a "substantial risk" furthermore specification for one count.
- Officers McQuaid and Bugaj responded to a disturbance at a residence; Scott left in a vehicle and officers activated lights and siren to effect a stop.
- Officers observed Scott travel at a high rate of speed, run a red light, and continue for roughly one-quarter mile in a 25 mph zone; McQuaid followed at up to about 65 mph.
- Scott lost control trying to navigate a right turn, struck a road sign, exited the vehicle, and fled on foot; dash-cam footage corroborated officers’ activation of lights/siren and Scott’s flight.
- At trial Scott argued insufficient evidence (particularly because he was acquitted of the underlying felonies), requested lesser-included instructions, and claimed the verdicts were inconsistent. The trial court sentenced Scott to 12 months; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Scott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for failure to comply and "substantial risk" specification | Evidence (officers’ testimony + dash-cam) shows lights/siren were activated, Scott willfully fled and created a substantial risk | Acquittal on underlying felonies and failure of specification undermines sufficiency; state failed to prove willfulness | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to prove willful eluding and that flight created substantial risk |
| Jury instructions — failure to give requested lesser-included instruction | Court properly instructed on failure to comply and separately on each furthermore specification | Trial court erred by not giving the proposed lesser-included instruction and by not separately instructing on Counts 3 and 4 | Affirmed — court’s instructions were clear, counts were presented separately, proposed instruction was unclear and not required |
| Separate instructions for Counts 3 and 4 | Counts treated and instructed as separate offenses with separate furthermore findings | Claimed jurors were not instructed separately on each count | Affirmed — transcript shows repeated, separate instructions for each count and furthermore finding |
| Alleged inconsistent verdicts | Verdicts are consistent because acquittal on felonious assault precludes finding the "fleeing after commission of a felony" specification | Jury’s acquittal on underlying felonies makes specification inconsistent with failure-to-comply conviction | Affirmed — not inconsistent; jury acquitted underlying felonies and therefore properly rejected the felony-related specification |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (circumstances for reviewing sufficiency and manifest weight distinctions)
- State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (intent may be inferred from voluntary acts; presumption intent to natural consequences)
- State v. Johnson, 56 Ohio St.2d 35 (presumption that voluntary acts intend natural, probable consequences)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (sufficiency requires proof of each element)
- State v. Garrard, 170 Ohio App.3d 487 (affirming inference of willfulness where lights/siren activated and defendant continued to speed)