APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 11 04 1091 (A)
GREGORY A. PRICE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
(¶1} Appellant Shauntae Hill appeals her conviction in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands.
(¶2} A baby girl tragically died from injuries sustained when Hill crashed her car into Lynette Hayward's car in the middle of the night after both women had been drinking. Both Hill and Hayward were prosecuted in regard to the incident and their cases were tried together.
(¶3} Hill was indicted on one count of aggravated vehicular homicide, one count of involuntary manslaughter, one count of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and one count of receiving stolen property. The trial court later dismissed the charge of receiving stolen property at the State's request. The matter proceeded to trial, at the conclusion of which the jury found Hill guilty of the remaining three counts. The trial court merged the count of involuntary manslaughter into the count of aggravated vehicular homicide and sentenced Hill to six years in prison for the homicide and twenty-four days in jail for operating under the influence. Hill's driving privileges were suspended for life. Hill filed a timely appeal in which she raises five assignments of error for review. This Court consolidates some assignments of error to facilitate review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS FOR AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE, INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, AND OPERATING A VEHICLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
(¶4} Hill argues that her convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
This Court disagrees.
In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review 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 trier of fact 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986).
Weight of the evidence concerns the tendency of a greater amount of credible evidence to support one side of the issue more than the other. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). Further when reversing a conviction on the basis that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court sits as a "thirteenth juror, " ...