824 N.E.2d 153 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2004
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jeffrey Harrington, appeals his conviction in the Madison County Municipal Court for carrying more than the legally permitted weight in his tractor-trailer. We affirm appellant's conviction.
{¶ 2} In April 2003, appellant was pulled over by Deputy Waggoner of the Madison County Sheriff's Department as appellant traveled south on U.S. Route 42 near the intersection of U.S. Route 42 and State Route 29 in Madison County. Based on his experience in truck-weight enforcement, Deputy Waggoner suspected that appellant was carrying more than the legally permitted weight in his *453 tractor-trailer. Deputy Waggoner could tell from the sound of the tractor-trailer's engine that it was working extremely hard in getting the tractor-trailer up to speed. He also observed that the tractor-trailer's tires were "squashed," and that debris was "coming off the back tailgate of the truck."
{¶ 3} After stopping appellant, Deputy Waggoner decided to weigh the tractor-trailer using the portable scale in his vehicle. Appellant subsequently followed Deputy Waggoner to a location where Deputy Waggoner could weigh the tractor-trailer. After determining that the tractor-trailer weighed more than the legally permitted limit, Deputy Waggoner cited appellant for a violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} In November 2003, the municipal court held a jury trial. Deputy Waggoner testified for the state, while appellant testified in his own defense. The jury found appellant guilty of violating R.C.
{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 6} "The trial court erred in excluding evidence proffered by defendant pertaining to R.C. 5577.04(A)."
{¶ 7} In this assignment of error, appellant argues that the municipal court erred in not allowing him to introduce evidence concerning the width of the tires on his tractor-trailer. Appellant argues that the width of the tires was relevant and could have constituted an affirmative defense to the charge.
{¶ 8} The admission or exclusion of evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Sage (1987),
{¶ 9} Relevant evidence is generally admissible. Evid.R. 402. "Relevant evidence" is defined as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Evid.R. 401.
{¶ 10} R.C.
{¶ 11} The formula for determining the maximum permitted weight under R.C.
{¶ 12} We find that the municipal court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit evidence of the width of the tractor-trailer's tires. The state was attempting to show that appellant violated R.C.
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 14} "The trial court erred in overruling defendant's motion for acquittal."
{¶ 15} Appellant makes two arguments under this assignment of error. First, he argues that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, appellant argues that R.C.
{¶ 16} We first address appellant's argument that the municipal court erred in denying his motion for acquittal. When reviewing the trial court's denial of a motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29, this court applies the same test as it would in reviewing a challenge based upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. State v. Thompson (1998),
{¶ 17} As we previously discussed, R.C.
{¶ 18} The formula for determining the maximum permitted weight under R.C.
{¶ 19} The maximum weight limit imposed by R.C.
{¶ 20} Appellant next argues that R.C.
{¶ 21} "[A] vague statute is one `which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.'" State v. Phipps (1979),
{¶ 22} There are four sections in R.C.
{¶ 23} As previously discussed, R.C.
{¶ 24} Appellant argues that R.C.
{¶ 25} We do not find that R.C.
{¶ 26} As to appellant's argument concerning R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
WILLIAM W. YOUNG, P.J., and WALSH, J., concur.