FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 15 12 3850
G. LOMBARDI, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
HENSAL, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Kevin Moultry appeals his conviction for failure to comply
with an order or signal of a police officer from the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
This appeal involves a police chase that occurred in a
Walmart parking lot after an officer approached Kevin Moultry
about a suspected theft. According to the testimony presented
at trial, an asset protection associate on duty at Walmart
saw Mr. Moultry place several items into a grocery cart and
then exit the store without paying for them. The asset
protection associate followed Mr. Moultry out of the store
and flagged down a police officer, who was driving through
the Walmart parking lot at the time. The asset protection
manager directed the officer to a parked SUV that Mr. Moultry
The officer pulled his cruiser behind the parked SUV and Mr.
Moultry exited the vehicle. After patting Mr. Moultry down,
the officer instructed him to stand near the cruiser while
the officer looked through the windows of the SUV. After
observing several packages of food on the floor of the SUV,
the officer instructed Mr. Moultry to "[c]ome here[,
]" at which point Mr. Moultry began to run through the
Walmart parking lot. The officer chased him on foot,
instructing Mr. Moultry to stop and advising him that he
would tase him.
Mr. Moultry ignored the officer's instruction and
eventually ran back to the police cruiser and got into the
driver's seat while the officer tried unsuccessfully to
tase him. The officer testified that as he was reaching into
the driver's side of the cruiser trying to keep the gear
shifter from going into drive and "still hanging in the
vehicle, [Mr. Moultry] throws it in drive, hits the gas, and
slams into the back end of the [SUV] * * * that he got out
of." The officer managed to put the cruiser into park or
neutral, but the engine continued to rev because Mr. Moultry
still had his foot on the accelerator. The officer then
managed to reach over Mr. Moultry and shut the engine off.
While doing so, Mr. Moultry struck the officer in the face
with his fist, causing a cut to the officer's lip. Mr.
Moultry then climbed over the center console, exited the
cruiser, and took off running again. This time, he ran back
into the Walmart store. He emerged shortly thereafter, having
removed his jacket and hat, presumably to avoid detection.
Meanwhile, other officers had responded to the scene. Despite
having removed his jacket and hat, the officer recognized Mr.
Moultry as he exited the store. The officer instructed Mr.
Moultry to stop, and alerted the other officers. Mr. Moultry
again began to run through the parking lot, and two officers
followed him in their police cruisers. The chase ultimately
ended when Mr. Moultry ran in front of one of the cruisers.
Mr. Moultry sustained minor injuries, including lacerations
to his face and a broken finger, and was transported to a
A grand jury indicted Mr. Moultry on counts for: (1) robbery
in violation of Revised Code Section 2911.02(A)(2); (2)
failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer
in violation of Section 2921.331(B); (3) assault in violation
of Section 2903.13(A); (4) obstructing official business in
violation of Section 2921.31(B); (5) petty theft in violation
of 2913.02(A)(1); and (6) resisting arrest in violation of
Section 2921.33(B). The jury found Mr. Moultry guilty of each
count, with the exception of the robbery count. The trial
court sentenced Mr. Moultry to a total of 52 months of
incarceration. Mr. Moultry now appeals his conviction for
failure to comply with an order or signal of a police
officer, raising two assignments of error for our review.
OF ERROR I
TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED
TO ESTABLISH ON THE RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST MR. MOULTRY IN VIOLATION OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.