Columbus v. Love

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2011 » Columbus v. Love

Columbus v. Love

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2011-Ohio-3657

Case Date: 07/26/2011

Plaintiff: Columbus

Defendant: Love

Preview:[Cite as Columbus v. Love, 2011-Ohio-3657.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
City of Columbus,                                                                             :
Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                           :
                                                                                                  No. 10AP-1206
v.                                                                                            :   (M.C. No. 2010 TR D 183839)
Arletta L. Love,                                                                              :   (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Defendant-Appellant.                                                                          :
D    E    C    I    S    I    O    N
Rendered on July 26, 2011
Richard C. Pfeiffer, Jr., City Attorney, Lara N. Baker, City
Prosecutor, and Jeffrey T. Stavroff, for appellee.
Arletta L. Love, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Municipal Court.
SADLER, J.
{¶1}   Defendant-appellant, Arletta L. Love, appeals from the judgment of the
Franklin County Municipal Court, finding her guilty of failing to change lanes with safety,
a minor-misdemeanor violation of Columbus City Code 2131.08(A)(1).   For the following
reasons, we affirm.
{¶2}   On November 5, 2010, at approximately 6:45 p.m., Officer Greg Hudson
investigated an automobile collision that occurred in the southbound lanes of Cleveland

No. 10AP-1206                                                                                   2
Avenue, slightly north of Interstate 270.   Hudson took statements from both motorists
involved,  appellant  and  Margo  Ayers.     After  speaking  with  each  motorist  and
investigating the scene, Hudson cited appellant for failing to safely change lanes in
violation of C.C.C. 2131.08(A)(1).
{¶3}   Appellant represented herself at a bench trial held on December 2, 2010.
Therein, the following evidence was presented.
{¶4}   Ayers testified that she drove west on Shrock Road before turning south
onto Cleveland Avenue.    Of the two left-turn lanes available, Ayers stated that she
completed the turn in the right-most lane and proceeded south on Cleveland Avenue.
According  to  Ayers,  she  remained  in  the  right-hand  lane  on  Cleveland  Avenue,
intending to take the adjacent entrance ramp onto I-270 westbound, when appellant
suddenly cut in front of her and struck the front driver-side corner of her car.   When
asked how quickly appellant changed lanes, Ayers responded, "It happened really fast
* * *.   So it was when she cut in front of me is when I first saw her."                        (Tr. 11.)   Ayers said
that she never left the right lane because she planned to take the westbound entrance
ramp onto I-270.   After the collision, both motorists pulled off to the side of the road and
contacted law enforcement.
{¶5}   Hudson testified that he responded to the scene to see both cars parked
off to the side of Cleveland Avenue.   During an inspection of both vehicles, Hudson saw
damage to the back passenger-side corner of appellant's car and to the front driver-side
corner  of  Ayers's  car.     According  to  Hudson,  both  bumpers  were  "pretty  badly
damaged."   (Tr. 22.)   As he took separate statements from each motorist, appellant told
him  that  Ayers  caused  the  collision  by improperly crossing into  the  left-hand  lane.

No. 10AP-1206                                                                                   3
Hudson  walked  to  the  scene  of  the  collision,  approximately  400  feet  south  of  the
intersection of Cleveland Avenue and Shrock Road, and found debris in only one of the
two southbound lanes, the right-hand lane.   Based on his investigation, Hudson cited
appellant for failing to safely change lanes.
{¶6}   Testifying  on  her  own  behalf,  appellant  stated  that  she  was  traveling
southbound on Cleveland Avenue in the left-hand lane when she noticed Ayers's car in
her rearview mirror.   According to appellant, Ayers crossed into the left-hand lane and
accelerated into the rear of appellant's car.   Appellant presented photographs of the
damage to her vehicle and of the general area near the collision.
{¶7}   At  the  close  of  the  evidence,  the  trial  court  found  appellant  guilty  of
violating C.C.C. 2131.08(A)(1), which provides:
Whenever any roadway has been divided into two  (2) or
more clearly marked lanes for traffic, or whenever traffic is
lawfully moving in two (2) or more substantially continuous
lines in the same direction, the following rules apply:
(1)   A vehicle shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable,
entirely within a single lane or line of traffic and shall not be
moved  from  such  lane  or  line  until  the  driver  has  first
ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.
{¶8}   On appeal, appellant presents the following two assignments of error for
our review:
1.   The Appellant asserts that the Trial court erred by not
acknowledging  that  the  ticketing  officer's  compromised
investigation was more than enough to establish reasonable
doubt[.]
2.   The Appellant asserts that the Trial Court erred by failing
to  prove  that  the  Appellant  is  the  one  who  caused  the
collision by changing lanes, unsafely[.]

No. 10AP-1206                                                                                   4
{¶9}   We construe both of appellant's assignments of error as challenging the
weight of the evidence.   Therefore, we will address them together.
{¶10}  In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, an appellate court sits as the "thirteenth juror" and must weigh the evidence
to determine whether 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. Thompkins,  78 Ohio St.3d  380,  387,  1997-Ohio-52, quoting State v. Martin
(1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175.     The appellate court must bear in mind the trier of
fact's  superior,  first-hand  perspective  in  judging  the  demeanor  and  credibility  of
witnesses.   State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus.
The power to reverse on "manifest weight" grounds should only be used in exceptional
circumstances when "the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction."   Thompkins
at 387.
{¶11}  A  defendant  is  not  entitled  to  a  reversal  on  manifest  weight  grounds
merely because inconsistent evidence was presented at trial.   State v. Raver, 10th Dist.
No.  02AP-604,  2003-Ohio-958,  ¶21.    While  the  trier  of  fact  may  take  note  of  the
inconsistencies and resolve or discount them accordingly, such inconsistencies do not
render a conviction against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.   State v.
Samatar,  152  Ohio  App.3d  311,  2003-Ohio-1639,  ¶113.    The  fact-finder  is  free  to
believe all, part or none of a witness's testimony.   See State v. Antill (1964), 176 Ohio
St. 61, 67.
{¶12}  Appellant argues that her testimony regarding the collision contradicted
the testimony offered by Ayers and Hudson.   However, conflicting testimony alone does

No. 10AP-1206                                                                                     5
not justify reversal on "manifest weight" grounds.   Raver at ¶21.   Despite appellant's
claim that her car was rear-ended by Ayers in the left lane, the trial court was free to
believe Ayers's testimony that appellant caused the collision by abruptly crossing into
Ayers's lane of travel, the right lane.   This testimony was supported by Hudson, who
found  debris  in  only  one  of  the  two  southbound  lanes—the  right  lane.    Although
appellant claims that Hudson failed to examine the left lane for debris, this claim belies
his  trial  testimony.    Hudson  described  his  investigation  in  detail,  stating  that  he
inspected both lanes for evidence.   According to Hudson, "There didn't seem to be any
kind of debris whatsoever in the left-hand lane."   (Tr. 27.)
{¶13}  The trial court was in the best position to weigh the evidence presented
and to assess the demeanor of each witness.   Given the great deference that must be
given to the trier of fact's credibility determinations, we cannot say that the trial court
clearly lost its way or created a manifest miscarriage of justice.   This is simply not the
exceptional  case  warranting  reversal  on  "manifest  weight"  grounds.    Accordingly,
appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶14}  Having overruled both assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the
Franklin County Municipal Court.
Judgment affirmed.
TYACK and CONNOR, JJ., concur.

Download 2011-ohio-3657.pdf