State v. HowardState v. Howard
Steven M. Runge, City of Franklin Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 292, Franklin, Ohio 45005, for plaintiff-appellee
Jeffrey C. Meadows, Jonathan N. Fox, 8310 Princeton-Glendale Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for defendant-appellant
HENDRICKSON, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jamie N. Howard, appeals her conviction and sentence in the Franklin Municipal Court for falsification. We affirm.
{¶2} On the evening of January 6, 2009, appellant‘s husband, Dexter Howard, was rushed to Atrium Medical Center (“Atrium“) for injuries he sustained while riding his neighbor‘s four-wheeler. As appellant waited at the hospital, she gave a written statement describing the accident to Trooper Brandon Rhule of the Ohio State Highway
{¶3} The next day, Dexter contacted Sergeant Bloomberg to tell him that he was driving the four-wheeler at the time of the accident, and that appellant “had said what she had said because * * * she was trying to protect him.” On January 9, 2009, Sergeant Bloomberg arrested Dexter at his residence. Dexter gave the officer a formal written statement, indicating that he was driving the four-wheeler at approximately 25-30 m.p.h. when he lost control as he attempted to turn the vehicle.
{¶4} As a result of the conflicting statements made to Trooper Rhule at Atrium, appellant was charged with one count of falsification, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of
{¶5} At trial, the state presented the testimony of Officers Rhule and Bloomberg, then rested. At the conclusion of the state‘s case-in-chief, appellant moved for acquittal pursuant to
{¶6} At the conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted of the falsification charge. The trial court later sentenced appellant accordingly. Appellant timely appeals, raising three assignments of error for review. This court will consolidate the first and second assignments of error to facilitate review.
{¶7} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶8} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT/APPELLANT‘S
{¶9} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶10} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING DEFENDANT/APPELLANT GUILTY OF FALSIFICATION WHEN THE STATE FAILED TO MEET THE ELEMENT OF VENUE.”
{¶11} Appellant‘s first and second assignments of error are predicated on the trial court‘s failure to rule on her
{¶12} It is well-established that the trial court, in maintaining reasonable control over the mode and presentation of evidence, has wide discretion to permit evidence to be offered out of order. State v. Peterson (June 28, 1999), Butler App. No. CA98-08-178, 2; State v. Boggs (Mar. 20, 1995), Clermont App. No. CA94-08-067, 1. This includes the decision to allow a party to reopen its case to present additional proof. Peterson at 2. Thus, a decision by the trial court to allow a party to reopen its case to offer additional evidence will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion.
{¶13} At trial, Trooper Rhule and Sergeant Bloomberg indicated that the sole basis for the charge against appellant was the written statement she gave at Atrium. However, the parties disputed whether Atrium was located within the limits of Franklin Township, or whether that area had been withdrawn from the township by the City of Middletown.1 A review of the record reveals that prior to resting, the state failed to produce any evidence that Atrium remained in Franklin Township. At the close of the state‘s case-in-chief, appellant moved for acquittal pursuant to
{¶14} Ohio courts have held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in allowing the state to reopen its case, even after a defendant‘s
{¶15} In the present case, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in allowing the state to reopen its case to present evidence regarding Atrium‘s location for purposes of proving venue. Allowing the state to reopen its case ensured: (1) that the case was properly before the court; and (2) that both parties were able to present evidence on all relevant issues before the court made its decision. In sum, the trial court‘s decision to allow the state to reopen its case served the interests of justice and was a sound exercise of the trial court‘s discretion. See State v. Steele, Butler App. No. CA2003-11-276, 2005-Ohio-943, ¶140.
{¶16} Thus, appellant‘s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶17} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶18} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PERMITTING THE STATE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE WITHOUT A WITNESS.”
{¶19} In her third and final assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court wrongfully took judicial notice that Atrium was located in Franklin Township because its decision was based on hearsay. Appellant argues that in order for the state‘s internet printouts to be admissible,
{¶20} As an initial matter,
{¶21} During trial, appellant did not assert that the internet printouts generated by the state were inaccurate or unreliable. The only basis appellant provided for her objection was that the printouts constituted inadmissible hearsay because they were “not self-authenticating” – a fact irrelevant to the issue now before us.
{¶22} Upon review, we hold that the trial court took proper judicial notice that Atrium was located in Franklin Township. This fact is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is capable of accurate and ready determination by reference to the Warren County Auditor‘s website, a source whose accuracy cannot be questioned given its status as an official source of government information. See, e.g., State v. Cook, Wood App. No. WD-04-029, 2006-Ohio-6062. As a result, the location of Atrium is subject to judicial notice under
{¶23} In addition, the record is void of any request by appellant for an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of the trial court‘s action pursuant to
{¶24} Thus, appellant‘s third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶25} Judgment affirmed.
YOUNG, P.J., and BRESSLER, J., concur.