STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HEIDY ROSADO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-240159
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
December 13, 2024
[Cite as State v. Rodriguez, 2024-Ohio-5832.]
TRIAL NO. C/23/TRD/27801. Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court. Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Appellant Discharged.
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and John D. Hill, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond L. Katz, for Defendant-Appellant.
{1} While riding her electric scooter on a roadway alongside traffic, officers followed defendant-appellant Heidy Rosado Rodriguez and eventually pulled her over, claiming that she impeded and blocked the flow of traffic in contravention of Ohio‘s slow speed law. Ms. Rodriguez took the issue to a bench trial, where the trial court ultimately cоnvicted her and levied a $50 fine. She now appeals to this court, asserting three assignments of error, essentially challenging the trial court‘s evidentiary detеrminations, its ultimate judgment, and raising cumulative error arguments from her trial. After reviewing the record, we agree with Ms. Rodriguez that insufficient evidence supported hеr conviction, reverse the trial court‘s judgment, and discharge her from further prosecution on this charge.
I.
{2} On a crisp October evening, at around 5 p.m., Ms. Rodriguеz zipped along North Bend Road with her daughter on electric scooters. As they approached a red stop light, the car in front of them stopрed, they slowed down and stopped, and a Green Township police cruiser pulled in behind them. Once the light turned green, the pair began traveling, and the оfficers followed them. Ms. Rodriguez hugged the right-hand curb (while avoiding drains and other irregularities), although her daughter strayed closer to the middle of the lane. At that point in the road, there was one lane going in each direction and a turn lane in the center of the road. The speed limit was 35 m.p.h.
{3} The officers’ dash-cаm video captured the entire affair, and no one disputes its authenticity or accuracy. Almost immediately after the light turned green, the officers aсtivated their vehicle‘s lights and steered around Ms. Rodriguez to the left (they estimated that she was traveling at about ten to 15 m.p.h.). Riding alongside her
{4} After a few more seconds, Ms. Rodriguez and her daughter eventually pulled into the turn lane and stopped, with the police cruiser behind them, where they began speaking with the police (a conversation that proceеded in fits and starts, given the language barrier).
{5} Ms. Rodriguez was ultimately charged with a slow-speed violation under
{6} Ms. Rodriguez now appeals to this court, asserting three assignments of error. She argues that the trial court erred when it failed to consider the plain language of the stаtute and continuously excluded relevant evidence, the trial court‘s judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the cumulative effect оf the trial court‘s error deprived her of a fair trial.
II.
{7} We begin with Ms. Rodriguez‘s second assignment of error, which we
{8} In determining whether a conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, appellate courts “assess whether, construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, ‘any ratiоnal trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.‘” State v. Williams, 2020-Ohio-5245, ¶ 15 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Brown, 2019-Ohio-3349, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). We review such issues de novo. Id., citing State v. Ellison, 2008-Ohio-5282, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.). Ms. Rodriguez was charged under
{9} As an initial matter, we perceive a threshold problem that was not raised in thе appellate briefs (but was raised by Ms. Rodriguez, albeit inartfully, at trial). The statute that the State charged Ms. Rodriguez under specifically applies to pеrsons operating vehicles, not electric scooters, which are categorized as “low-speed micromobility devices” by the General Assembly. See
{10} Based on the evidence in the record, particularly the dash-cam video, we do not see sufficient evidence that established that Ms. Rodriguez “impede[d] or block[ed] the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” At trial, the officers tended to conflate the actions of Ms. Rodriguez with those of her daughter, in terms of their whereabouts in the lane. But this case only concerns Ms. Rodriguez‘s actions. The undisputed evidence shows that Ms. Rodriguez drove her scooter as close as reasonably practicable under the circumstances to the right-hand edge of the lane. Given her location, and the center-turn lane bisecting the lanes of traffic, her positioning by necessity could not have impeded or blocked the flow of traffic at that particular location. Nor do we need to speculate on that point, because the police cruiser proved the matter. It pulled alongside Ms. Rodriguez, and presumably could‘ve just kept going (as long as hеr daughter wasn‘t in the way). Ms. Rodriguez was certainly going at a low rate of speed (most scooters can‘t exceed 15-20 m.p.h.), but she didn‘t impede anything. Even construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, any vehicle could have easily, and safely, passed her at that point on the road.
{11} Therefоre, we sustain Ms. Rodriguez‘s second assignment of error, which renders moot her first and third assignments of error.
{12} Based on the foregoing reasons, we sustain Ms. Rodriguez‘s second assignment of error and find that her conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and discharge Ms. Rodriguez from further prosecution on this charge.
Judgment reversed and appellant discharged.
ZAYAS, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.