Willoughby Hills v. LyonsWilloughby Hills v. Lyons
Rick L. Ferrara, 2077 East 4th Street, 2nd Floor, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Steven D. Lyons, appeals the judgment of conviction from the Willoughby Municipal Court, after a bench trial, on one count of failing to comply with a traffic signal, a minor misdemeanor. For the following reasons, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On June 24, 2012, appellant‘s vehicle collided with another motorist while attempting to turn left at an intersection in Willoughby Hills, Ohio. Appellant was charged with failing to comply with a traffic signal, a minor misdemeanor in violation of
{¶3} Following trial, appellant filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, which were overruled. Appellant attempted to timely appeal the trial court‘s entry; however, the entry was not final or appealable because it did not set forth the fact of conviction as required by
{¶4} Appellant initially asserted four assignments of error in his appellate brief. However, his fourth assignment of error was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction via this court‘s judgment entry of June 27, 2013. His remaining assignments of error will be addressed in reverse order for ease of discussion.
{¶5} Appellant‘s third assignment of error states:
{¶6} “The trial court committed plain error by convicting appellant pursuant to a fatally defective complaint.”
{¶7} Appellant argues his conviction must be reversed because the traffic citation charging failure to comply with a traffic signal did not recite the correct ordinance number. The merits of this contention need not be addressed because, factually, appellant‘s claim is inaccurate. Appellant was charged under the City of
{¶8} “No pedestrian or driver of a vehicle shall disobey the instructions of any traffic control device placed in accordance with the provisions of this Traffic Code, unless at the time otherwise directed by a police officer.”
{¶9} This section was properly set forth in the traffic citation. As the city suggests, it would appear appellant has confused the ordinances from the city of Willoughby and the city of Willoughby Hills. By contrast, obedience to traffic control devices appears in City of Willoughby ordinance 414.01.
{¶10} Appellant‘s third assignment of error is without merit.
{¶11} Appellant‘s second assignment of error states:
{¶12} “The trial court erred in excluding photo evidence of a traffic signal sequence for purposes of cross-examination.”
{¶13} In his second assignment of error, appellant refers to photos and a video of the traffic light sequence which he attempted to introduce at trial during the cross-examination of the on-scene officer. Appellant notes he attempted to introduce this photo and video evidence in an effort to impeach the officer‘s narrative of events.
{¶14} Ordinarily, a court‘s evidentiary rulings are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Poling, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2008-A-0071, 2010-Ohio-1155, ¶19, citing State v. Sweeney, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2006-L-252, 2007-Ohio-5223, ¶22. Here, however, appellate review is frustrated because the excluded evidence was never proffered and is therefore not part of the record. We cannot rely on appellant‘s contentions in his merit brief concerning what the video or photo evidence depicted.
{¶15} Appellant‘s second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶16} Appellant‘s first assignment of error states:
{¶17} “The manifest weight of the evidence did not support [the] conviction for failure to comply with a traffic signal.”
{¶18} To determine whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider the weight of the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses and all reasonable inferences, to determine whether the trier of fact “lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). In weighing the evidence submitted at a criminal trial, an appellate court must defer to the factual findings of the trier of fact regarding the weight to be given the evidence and credibility of the witnesses. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶19} In this case, it cannot be concluded the trial court, as the trier of fact, lost its way. Witness Robert Wilk, who was situated behind appellant at the traffic light,
{¶20} Accordingly, appellant‘s first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶21} The judgment of the Willoughby Municipal Court is affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J.,
concur.