2023 Ohio 4754
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- David Stultz was convicted in the Avon Lake Municipal Court of operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI), following reports of erratic driving and subsequent police investigation, where he was found visibly intoxicated in his SUV.
- Stultz contested at trial he was not driving, claiming a friend (A.C.) drove him home, but eyewitness and police testimony indicated otherwise.
- On direct appeal, Stultz argued errors regarding probable cause for arrest, the admission of police cruiser video, and that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The appellate court initially affirmed the conviction, partly because the police cruiser video was not included in the record, leading the court to presume regularity of proceedings.
- Stultz then moved to reopen his appeal, claiming ineffective assistance of prior appellate counsel for failing to include the police cruiser video in the record, and the court granted this motion, allowing the reopened appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of police cruiser video under Evid.R. 403(A) | Video was more prejudicial than probative and unfairly influenced the jury | Video was probative of intoxication; State must establish all elements | Affirmed admission; no abuse of discretion |
| Manifest weight of the evidence (who was driving) | Jury wrongly believed State’s witnesses over defense’s version | Witness credibility was for jury to assess; evidence supported conviction | Affirmed conviction; not against manifest weight |
| Sentencing entry stating Stultz pled guilty (clerical error) | Sentencing entry erroneously noted a guilty plea instead of not guilty | Agreed; record shows not guilty plea and jury trial | Remanded for nunc pro tunc correction to entry |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | Prior counsel’s failure to secure police video prejudiced appellate rights | Video absence did prejudice appeal; preserved assignments now considered | Ineffective; court vacated prior judgment in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (defines ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard of review)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (manifest weight of the evidence review standard)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (appellate review for manifest weight of the evidence)