Opinion
Case No. 2019 CA 00011
12-24-2019
STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. RYAN J. EICKSTADT Defendant-Appellant
APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee J. MICHAEL KING City of Newark, Assistant Law Director 40 West Main Street Newark, Ohio 43055 For Defendant-Appellant DARRIN C. LEIST Leist Warner, LLC 513 E. Rich Street, Ste. #201 Columbus, Ohio 43215
JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Licking County Municipal Court, Case No. 2018 TRC 08841 JUDGMENT: Affirmed APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee J. MICHAEL KING
City of Newark, Assistant Law Director
40 West Main Street
Newark, Ohio 43055 For Defendant-Appellant DARRIN C. LEIST
Leist Warner, LLC
513 E. Rich Street, Ste. #201
Columbus, Ohio 43215 Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ryan J. Eickstadt, appeals his conviction entered by the Licking County Municipal Court for being in physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of R.C. 4511.194, following a jury's verdict of guilty to said charge. The state of Ohio is plaintiff-appellee.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
{¶2} On July 2, 2018, Appellant was charged with one count of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)); one count of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)(b)); and one count of being in physical control of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (R.C. 4511.194).
{¶3} The case proceeded to a jury trial held on February 7, 2019. Following the close of the state of Ohio's case, the trial court granted Appellant's Crim.R. 29(A) Motion for Judgment of Acquittal as to both of the operating while under the influence of alcohol charges. The case proceeded on the physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol charge. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty on that charge. The trial court entered a conviction on said count and sentenced Appellant accordingly.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
{¶4} On July 1, 2018, at 4:24 a.m., Officer Mills of the Pataskala Police Department was dispatched to the area of 279 Monarch Street in Pataskala regarding a report of a suspicious person. The report advised of a white male possibly passed out behind the wheel of a dark colored sedan.
{¶5} Deputy Wolverton of the Licking County Sheriff's Office was in the area and located a vehicle legally parked with a white male passed out in the driver's seat.
{¶6} Officer Mills arrived at the scene and observed Appellant seated in the driver's seat, slouched over the center console with his head in the passenger area. Unopened cans of beer were seen in the back seat. The keys were in the vehicle's ignition, but no other indications of operation of the vehicle were observed other than the lights appeared to be on.
{¶7} Officer Mills attempted to wake Appellant by knocking on the driver's side window and yelling to him. Appellant eventually awakened.
{¶8} Officer Mills characterized Appellant as being startled, very disoriented, and unresponsive to his questions. Officer Mills observed Appellant had glassy and bloodshot, red eyes, and detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from Appellant's breath. Upon Officer Mills' request to product identification, Appellant twice presented his debit card, and on his third attempt produced his driver's license. Officer Mills administered three field sobriety tests to Appellant. Appellant failed all tests: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the Walk and Turn test, and the One-Legged Stand test. Both the officers opined Appellant was under the influence of alcohol. Appellant was then placed under arrest.
{¶9} Appellant assigns as error:
I. THE JURY'S VERDICT WERE [SIC] AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
II. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTIONS.
I, II
{¶10} As Appellant's assignments of error are both predicated upon an analysis of the factual evidence produced to support the conviction, we choose to address them together.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶11} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror and "in reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines whether in resolving conflicts in evidence the jury 'clearly lost its way and related 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-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983).
{¶12} An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine 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 a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus (1991).
{¶13} At the core of Appellant's argument is the fact both Officer Mills and Deputy Wolverton acknowledge they failed to follow the standard operating procedure of their respective departments by failing to video record their interaction with Appellant, although both offered an explanation as to why no video existed. There is no legal requirement a video recording be made. The jury was free to assess the failure to video-record the encounter in determining the officers' credibility.
{¶14} Appellant argues his vehicle was safely and legally parked alongside a residential curb and both officers acknowledged there were other possible reasons besides alcohol impairment for sleeping in one's vehicle at 4:24 a.m., such as exhaustion or illness. Both officers acknowledged an odor of an alcoholic beverage is neither, in and of itself, a sign of impairment nor an indication alcohol has necessarily been consumed. The officers further conceded poor performance on the field sobriety tests could be the result of factors other than alcoholic impairment. Based on the foregoing, Appellant asserts the state failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellant complains evidence of Appellant's prior conviction for OMV prejudiced the jury but does not separately assign its admission as error. The evidence was admissible relative to the first two charges prior to their dismissal by the trial court. We note the trial court later instructed the jury to disregard the prior conviction.
Though insufficiency of the evidence is assigned as error, Appellant does not separately argue such assignment in his merit brief to this Court. --------
{¶15} Based upon all the evidence noted in the Statement of the Facts, supra, we find there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant's conviction, and the jury did not lose its way in returning a verdict of guilty to the physical control charge.
{¶16} Appellant's two assignments of error are overruled.
{¶17} The judgment of the Licking County Municipal Court is affirmed. By: Hoffman, P.J. Wise, John, J. and Delaney, J. concur