2020 Ohio 2878
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On Sept. 21, 2017, Steven Sutton struck a cement truck (driven by M.W.) while passing on the right in Medina, Ohio; he left the scene without giving his information to M.W.
- Sutton called 911 from away from the scene, gave his name/address to dispatch, said he would meet police at home, and during the call said he was drinking; he later denied drinking at trial.
- Officer Moran smelled alcohol on Sutton when contacting him at home; Sutton was not charged with an alcohol offense but was charged with failure to stop after an accident (R.C. 4549.02(A)(1)) and a minor misdemeanor for passing on the right.
- Sutton moved in limine to exclude evidence of alcohol consumption and challenged a municipal local rule (Loc.R. 6) that affected filing a notice of appearance and appointment of a court reporter.
- A jury convicted Sutton of failure to stop after an accident; the municipal court sentenced him to 30 days jail, restitution, a six-month license suspension, and a fine; Sutton appealed raising three assignments of error (Loc.R.6, Crim.R.29 sufficiency, Evid.R.403 exclusion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Loc.R. 6 impermissibly restricts appellate counsel and requires appellate counsel to file a notice of appearance/secure court reporter | Sutton: Loc.R.6 is unenforceable because it forces appellate counsel to also appear in trial court to perfect appeal | State: procedure did not prejudice Sutton; appointment of reporter was possible under local rule | Court: Moot — reporter was ultimately appointed; no live controversy; assignment overruled |
| Whether evidence was insufficient (Crim.R.29) because Sutton called police and provided his info, so he complied with R.C. 4549.02(A)(1) | Sutton: calling police and giving name/address by phone before leaving satisfied duty to provide information | State: statute requires operator to remain at scene and provide information to all listed persons (including driver of damaged vehicle); Sutton left without providing info to M.W. | Court: Conviction supported; Crim.R.29 properly denied — Sutton failed to provide information to M.W. and did not remain at scene |
| Whether testimony and 911 statements about Sutton's alcohol consumption were inadmissible under Evid.R.403 | Sutton: evidence of drinking was minimally probative and highly prejudicial; motion in limine should have been granted | State: evidence probative of Sutton's condition, motive for leaving, and credibility; limited to observations and the 911 call | Court: No abuse of discretion — alcohol evidence was probative on motive/credibility and not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1895) (mootness/requirement of an actual controversy)
- Minter v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (1910) (justiciability principle requiring live controversy)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)
- State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (2002) (discussing Evid.R.403 and discretionary nature of exclusion)