State v. Wheaton, 2018 Ohio 1648

On December 27, 2016 Dashawnda Wheaton, driving a borrowed Chevrolet Impala without a license, was involved in a collision with a parked Montgomery County probation van on Parkhill Drive.
Occupants of the van (driver Willie Peavy and three coworkers) testified the van was parked and the Impala sideswiped its driver side; Wheaton said the van hit the rear of her car as she turned onto Parkhill.
Wheaton gave a name and address to van occupants at the scene but left before police arrived because she feared arrest for driving without a license; she later met with police and admitted driving without a license.
Police traced the vehicle to the registered owner (Wheaton’s daughter) and issued citations to Wheaton for Operating Without a Valid License, Hit and Run (R.C. 4549.02), and Failure to Control (D.C.O. 71.1802).
At a bench trial the court convicted Wheaton of Operating Without a Valid License, Hit and Run, and Failure to Control; Wheaton appealed arguing insufficient evidence, manifest-weight error, and that she furnished required information at the scene.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Wheaton failed to maintain reasonable control (D.C.O. 71.1802)	State: testimony from four van occupants established the van was parked and Wheaton sideswiped it, showing lack of reasonable control.	Wheaton: physical damage was to rear of Impala and her version (van hit her while turning) is more plausible; State’s theory defies physics.	Court: Affirmed conviction — credibility of van witnesses supported verdict; photos did not preclude a sideswipe and no expert required.
Whether the conviction for failure to control was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: multiple consistent eyewitnesses; trial court best positioned to resolve credibility.	Wheaton: conflicting accounts, implausible mechanics of collision, trial court should have credited her evidence.	Court: Not against manifest weight — factfinder properly weighed testimony and found Wheaton not credible.
Whether Wheaton furnished the required information before leaving (R.C. 4549.02)	State: Wheaton did not provide owner’s name/address or give information to police at scene; partial info to van occupants insufficient.	Wheaton: she gave name and address at scene and gave info to probation officers (who have police powers).	Court: Affirmed conviction — even if she gave her own name/address, she failed to provide owner’s name/address and argument equating probation officers to police was waived.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (manifest-weight standard and rare reversal principle)
State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 (discussing weight-of-evidence review and appellate deference to factfinder)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (weight-of-evidence framework quoted by court)