STATE OF OHIO v. CHRISTOPHER LEE PACIFIC
CASE NO. CA2023-02-018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
12/28/2023
2023-Ohio-4779
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cаse No. 22CR39899
The Helbling Law Firm, LLC, and John J. Helbling, for appellant.
HENDRICKSON, P.J.
{1} Christopher Lee (“Appellant“) appeals his convictions in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, driving under suspension, and obstructing official business.
Factual Background
{2} On October 28, 2022 at around 3:30 a.m., Franklin Police Officer Keil (“Officer
{3} At that point, Officer Keil made a U-turn аnd proceeded toward the Ford. After catching up, he was able to read its license plate as being “DTW 9452” and conveyed this to dispatch. After activating his overhead lights, Officer Keil turned on his cruiser‘s siren for several quick bursts to attempt to initiate a stоp. However, when the Ford continued to accelerate, he flipped on the siren, notified dispatch that the Ford was failing to comply, and began to pursue the vehicle.
{4} During the ensuing pursuit, Officer Keil observed the Ford pass another vehicle by сrossing over the double yellow lines at speeds between 65 and 70 miles per hour. The Ford then continued to accelerate to between 80 and 100 miles per hour through bends in the road. The Ford proceeded to disobey several traffic signals while cоntinuing to speed at times in excess of 100 miles per hour. Officer Keil eventually lost sight of the vehicle and stopped his pursuit around 3:53 a.m. However, he was notified by dispatch that the address associated with the license plate of the Ford was 105 Cole Avenuе, Miamisburg, Ohio, and that Miamisburg Police were heading to the address. Officer Keil and another Franklin police officer who had joined the pursuit proceeded to the address.
{5} Deputy Sheriff Billmaier (“Deputy Billmaier“) with the Warren County K-9 Unit was also on patrol that night. After hearing the police chase over the radio, he also drove to 105 Cole Avenue. Upon arriving near the address, Deputy Billmaier noticed a Ford he
{6} Miamisburg officers made contact with a woman, later determined to be Appellant‘s mother, and she consented to a search of the residence at 912 Park Avenuе. Initially, the officers made a perimeter around the residence, opened the rear door to the home, and held Deputy Billmaier‘s canine partner at the door. After making several commands for anyone inside to come out, Miamisburg police decided to search the residence themselves and not use canine assistance.
{7} No one was found in the lower level of the residence, but the officers observed scattered items in the laundry area and footprints on top of оne of the appliances. Directly above the appliances was an attic entrance. Miamisburg officers entered the attic and apprehended Appellant, who was wearing a sweatshirt with a camo design and a black toboggan cap. The keys to the Ford were not found and it was determined that Appellant‘s license was suspended.
Procedural Posture
{8} Appellant was charged with four crimes: (1) Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a Police Officer; (2) Driving Under Suspension; (3) Obstructing Official Business; and (4) Illegal Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The drug-related
{9} At trial, Officer Keil identified the individual apprehended on October 28, 2022 as Appellant and noted that the Ford vehicle parked on Cole Avenue that day had the same license plate number as the vehicle he pursued. Deputy Billmaier verified at trial that Appellant was the individual who shut the driver‘s side door to the Ford and ran from him. Appellant moved for acquittal at trial, but it was denied by the court. The jury found Appellant guilty on all counts except the drug-related charge. The trial court sentenced Appellant to 30 months, six months, and 90 days for each charge respectively and ran all sentences concurrently. Appellant‘s driver‘s liсense was suspended for life.
{10} First Assignment of Error:
THE JURY ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BY FINDING HIM GUILTY OF COUNTS I, II, AND III WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
{11} Second Assignment of Error:
THE JURY ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFNDANT-APPELLANT BY FINDING HIM GUILTY OF COUNTS I, II, AND III AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
{12} Third Assignment of Error:
THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BY DENYING HIS MOTIONS FOR ACQUITTAL UNDER OHIO RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 29
{13} Appellant raises three assignments of error which will all be addressed together. On appeal, Appellant argues there was no evidence presented at trial which “unequivocally identif[ied]” him as the driver of the Ford on October 22, 2022. Police found no keys to the Ford and no testimony tied him directly to the driver of the car except the testimony of Officer Keil, which Appellant believes was “manufactured to fit the description” of the clothing he was found wearing in the attic. Aрpellant also argues that the state failed
{14} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond а reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. Essentially, “the test for sufficiency focuses on whether the state met its burden of production at trial * * *.” State v. Paul, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2011-10-026, 2012-Ohio-3205, ¶ 10.
{15} However, a manifest weight of the evidence determination must examine “the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997), quoting Black‘s Law Dictionary (6th Ed.1990). Stated differently, during this examination, appellate courts “review the entire record, weigh the evidenсe and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice” that a new trial must be ordered. State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359, 2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 168.
{16} Impоrtantly, while the appellate courts will inspect the entire record, they must keep in mind that because testimony and evidence were presented directly to a judge or jury, the trier of fact was in the best position to evaluate witness credibility, weigh thе evidence, and render a verdict and judgment. Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21; State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14-15. Thus, a conviction will be overturned only where there has been “a manifest miscarriage of justice” and the evidence “weighs heavily in favor of acquittal.” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 at 387.
{17} Under
{18} As a result of the foregoing, “[a] determination that a conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency” as well as whether denial of a
{19} Turning to the relevant charges on appeal,
{20} Here, the state‘s case against Appellant was based on circumstantial evidence. “Circumstantial evidence is proof of сertain facts and circumstances in a given case, from which the jury may infer other, connected facts, which usually and reasonably follow according to the common experience of mankind.” State v. Stringer, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-04-095, 2013-Ohio-988, ¶ 31. Importantly, “[c]ircumstantial evidence inherently possesses the same probative value as direct evidence, and a conviction based on circumstantial evidence is no less sound than one based on direct evidence.” State v. Wallace, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2022-08-022, 2023-Ohio-1525, ¶ 22. As a result, “circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviсtion if that evidence would convince the average mind of the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231, 238 (1990); State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101, 2005-Ohio-6046, ¶ 75, quoting Heinish.
{21} There is no dispute that Officer Keil was led on a dangerous high speed chase, and the circumstantial evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly demonstrated that Appellant was the driver of the Ford on October 28, 2022: (1) Appellant was apprehended wearing the same clothes Officer Keil had observed the driver of the Ford wearing; (2) upon arriving at the duplex registered to the licensе plate of the Ford vehicle involved in the chase, Deputy Billmaier observed the Ford parked on the street and an individual closing its driver side door; (3) after Deputy Billmaier stepped out of his vehicle and attempted to question this individual, the person ran; (4) upon search of the duplex, the man who ran from Deputy Billmaier was found in the attic above the wash room and identified as Appellant.
{22} Given these pieces of evidence, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that Appellant was the driver оf the Ford on October 28, 2022, drove back to his residence, ran
{23} The fact that the keys to the Ford were never discovered does not detract from this line of reasoning or make it impossible for Appellant to have led police on a high-speed chase. In addition, while Appellant argues that Officer Keil‘s testimony matching Appellant‘s clothing to that of the driver was “manufactured,” we note that Appellant does nothing to challenge Officer Keil‘s credibility other than point out that this tеstimony was useful to further illustrate that Appellant was the driver of the Ford. With nothing else, the trier of fact was clearly still at liberty to find Officer Keil‘s testimony credible.
{24} While it is true that none of the evidence derived from the series of events described above, standing alone, “unequivocally identifies” Appellant as the driver of the Ford, the strong circumstantial evidence, taken as a whole, leads to an inexorable conclusion; Appellant, with a suspended license, willfully eluded police after receiving a signal to stop and sought to obstruct the police by engaging in a high-speed pursuit as well as purposely hiding from police in the attic of his home. The jury did not lose its way in this case, but instead followed a logical path created by the evidence presented at trial.
{25} The assignments of error are overruled.
{26} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.