Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Stephen M. Todd

November 7, 2011

STATE OF OHIO :
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
STEPHEN M. TODD DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Canton Municipal Court, Case No. 2010CRB02826

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Farmer, J.

Cite as State v. Todd,

JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

: OPINION

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

{¶1} On July 3, 2010, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper William Lee stopped appellant, Stephen Todd, for rolling through a stop sign while he was operating his motorcycle. As Trooper Lee approached appellant, he observed a firearm in a holster on his person. As a result, appellant was charged with improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(C).

{¶2} On December 21, 2010, appellant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to allege any violation of the law because he was "on" a motorcycle, not "in" a motor vehicle. By judgment entry filed December 23, 2010, the trial court denied the motion.

{¶3} A jury trial commenced on December 29, 2010. Appellant made motions for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29, using the same arguments as in his motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motions. The jury found appellant guilty. By judgment entry filed December 30, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to thirty days in jail, suspended in lieu of thirty hours of community service.

{¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

I

{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND HIS SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL PURSUANT TO RULE 29."

II

{¶6} "APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE."

III

{¶7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO PERMIT THE TESTIMONY OF APPELLANT'S EXPERT, JAMES KESTEL, TO BE HEARD BY THE JURY."

IV

{¶8} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE WORD 'IN' AS IT WAS AN ELEMENT THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT."

I, II

{¶9} Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss and subsequent Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal, and his conviction was against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.

{¶10} Crim.R. 29 governs motion for acquittal. Subsection (A) states the following:

{¶11} "The court on motion of a defendant or on its own motion, after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, information, or complaint, if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses. The court may not reserve ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state's case."

{¶12} The standard to be employed by a trial court in determining a Crim.R. 29 motion is set out in State v. Bridgeman (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 261, syllabus:

{¶13} "Pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A), a court shall not order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

{ΒΆ14} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259. "The 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 a reasonable doubt." Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307. On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire record, weigh the evidence 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 the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.