State v. McClainState v. McClain
OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Richard McClain, appeals his conviction in Warren County Court for driving under suspension. We affirm appellant's conviction.
{¶ 2} In November 2004, Officer Pultz of the Springboro Police Depаrtment pulled over appellant for not having his rear license plate illuminated and for failure tо use his turn signal. Officer Pultz subsequently obtained appellant's motor vehicle information by accessing the Lаw Enforcement Automated Data System ("LEADS")1 from his cruiser's computer. Upon discovering that appellant's driver's license was suspended, Officer Pultz cited appellant for driving under suspension in violation of
{¶ 3} At a bеnch trial before the county court in May 2005, Officer Pultz testified that the LEADS information on his cruiser's computer screen indicated that appellant's driver's license was suspended. Appellant did not object to that testimony. Officer Pultz testified that a dispatcher printed out the LEADS information, which Officer Pultz later retrieved.
{¶ 4} The state offered an uncertified LEADS printout into evidence at trial. The printout indicated that appellant's license was under a "violator compact suspension" and a "non-complianсe suspension" at the time Office Pultz stopped him. The county court allowed the uncertified LEADS printout into evidence over appellant's objection. The court determined that the printout was admissiblе under
{¶ 5} Appellant now appeals, assigning one error as follows:
{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE ADMISSION OF AN UNCERTIFIED LEADS PRINTOUT, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF EVIDENCE RULE 803(8)."
{¶ 7} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues thаt the uncertified LEADS printout did not qualify for the "public records and reports" hearsay exception. Aрpellant also argues that the printout was not properly authenticated.
{¶ 8} Initially, we note that we would not have this appeal had the state offered a record of appellant's driving status сertified as accurate by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. A certified copy of such an оfficial record is admissible under the hearsay exception in
{¶ 9} Nevertheless, we need not address thе hearsay and authentication issues in this case because, even if the county court erred in admitting thе uncertified LEADS printout, the error was harmless. There was other evidence in the record establishing appellant's guilt of driving under suspension. See State v. Brown,
{¶ 10} Officer Pultz's testimony was sufficient to withstand appellant's
{¶ 11} Appellant himself provided additional tеstimony supporting the conclusion that he was driving under suspension. Appellant testified that he receivеd a traffic ticket in Kentucky, for which he owed $300. Appellant testified that he sent a check for the amount of the ticket to Kentucky authorities, but they returned the check, informing him that he was required to apрear in court. According to his own testimony, appellant never resolved his traffic citation in Kentucky. Under the "Nonresident Violator Compact," the state of Ohio was required to suspend appellant's license upon notice from Kentucky authorities of appellant's failure to resolve his tickеt. See
{¶ 12} Accordingly, we overrule appellant's sole assignment of error. Because there was other evidence in the record establishing appellаnt's guilt of driving under suspension, any error by the county court in admitting the LEADS printout was harmless.
{¶ 13} Judgment affirmed.
YOUNG and BRESSLER, JJ., concur.