State v. Stultz
2021 Ohio 2232
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On April 15, 2019 a 911 caller (H.E.) reported a black Cadillac Escalade driving erratically, provided real-time location updates, and relayed the license plate; dispatch passed this information to Avon Lake officers.
- Lt. Tibbetts located the SUV at the registered address; officers found the vehicle running in a driveway with David Stultz seated in the driver’s seat, door open, loud music playing.
- Officers observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, an odor of alcohol, incoherent/mumbling behavior, and unsafe ability to perform field sobriety tests; Stultz was arrested and later refused a breath test.
- At trial Stultz admitted drinking but denied driving; he offered a witness (A.C.) who said he had been driving; the 911 caller contradicted that account.
- The court admitted a cruiser video (transport to booking) at trial; the video was not included in the appellate record despite the court’s extension to supplement.
- Stultz appealed, raising (1) erroneous denial of suppression (probable cause), (2) improper admission of cruiser video (prejudice vs. stipulation), and (3) conviction against the manifest weight/insufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest for OVI | 911 eyewitness, dispatcher relayed plate/address, and officers observed signs of intoxication provided sufficient probable cause | Officers lacked a description of the driver / number of occupants, so no reliable basis to arrest Stultz | Denied suppression; totality (reliable 911 report + observations of intoxication) established probable cause |
| Admission of cruiser video | Video was probative of intoxication/behavior and admissible | Video was more prejudicial than probative; Stultz offered to stipulate to intoxication (alleged) | Admission affirmed; appellant failed to include the video in the record and no offer to stipulate appears in the record |
| Manifest weight / sufficiency of evidence | 911 call, officers’ observations, and presence in driver’s seat supported conviction | Conviction against the manifest weight because Stultz was not proven to be the driver | Overruled; appellate record incomplete (missing video) so court presumes regularity; evidence supports the conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard for reviewing mixed questions in suppression motions; appellate deference to trial court on facts)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (trial court as finder of fact on suppression and credibility)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (appellate courts accept trial court’s factual findings if supported by competent, credible evidence)
- State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (1997) (appellate court independently reviews legal conclusions after accepting trial court facts)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (when record omits portions necessary for review, courts must presume regularity)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (definition and standard for manifest-weight review)