City of Rocky River v. Zorc

2018 Ohio 389, 105 N.E.3d 579
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 1, 2018
Docket105596
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 Ohio 389 (City of Rocky River v. Zorc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Rocky River v. Zorc, 2018 Ohio 389, 105 N.E.3d 579 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Scott L. Zorc ("Zorc") appeals his conviction for failure to change lanes when approaching a stationary public safety vehicle in violation of the city of Rocky River Codified Ordinances 333.031(A)(1). We reverse and vacate.

I. Background and Facts

{¶ 2} On May 18, 2016, the city of Rocky River issued a complaint against Zorc for two traffic violations occurring on April 18, 2016. Zorc was charged with violating: (1) the city of Rocky River Codified Ordinances 333.031(a)(1) by failing to change lanes when approaching a Rocky River police vehicle with lights activated; and (2) the city of Rocky River Codified Ordinances 333.09(A) due to reckless operation of a motor vehicle.

{¶ 3} On June 13, 2016, Zorc entered a plea of not guilty. A bench trial was conducted before the magistrate on November 3, 2016, and December 1, 2016. Officers Krebs, Dudas, and Riley from the Westlake police department, and Rocky River police department officers King, Bowen, and Blazer testified. Exhibits included dash cam videos and still photographs of the dash cam scenes.

{¶ 4} On April 18, 2016, at approximately 11:23 a.m., Officer Krebs was involved in a high speed pursuit of a white van that eventually proceeded eastbound on Interstate 90 ("I-90"). Officer Krebs radioed dispatch for assistance from the Westlake and Rocky River police departments. Officers Dudas and Riley joined the pursuit. The speed of the vehicles exceeded 90 miles per hour.

{¶ 5} The three Westlake officers testified that their lights and sirens were activated during the pursuit and that the Rocky River police cruiser positioned on the left side of the highway berm with lights activated during the pursuit ("Rocky River cruiser") was visible from a distance. Officers Blazer and Bowen were manning the Rocky River cruiser and were positioned to deploy stop stick tire deflators to slow down the van. The Westlake officers stated that other vehicles moved over from the far left lane due to the presence of the Rocky River cruiser, demonstrating that the Rocky River cruiser was visible to oncoming traffic.

{¶ 6} Zorc was traveling eastbound in the far left lane of the three-lane highway ahead of the pursuit. Joint exhibit No. 1, the dash cam video recording from Officer Riley's cruiser, was introduced into evidence during his testimony. Officer Riley pointed out several other cars pulling over to the right lanes in deference to the Rocky River cruiser, but Zorc's vehicle did not.

{¶ 7} Officer King confirmed that the Westlake police cruisers pursued with lights and sirens activated. He also stated the Rocky River cruiser could be observed from a distance positioned with lights activated.

{¶ 8} Officers Blazer and Bowen manned the Rocky River cruiser. The lights were activated, but the siren was not. Officer Blazer was positioned in front of the Rocky River cruiser, waiting to throw the stop sticks in front of the approaching van that was proceeding in the far left high speed lane behind appellant's vehicle.

{¶ 9} Officer Blazer tossed the stop sticks into the lane as Zorc and the van approached. The sticks punctured the van's two left tires and Zorc's right tire. Officer Blazer testified that he and Officer Bowen who continued in pursuit were ordered to return to the scene of Zorc's disabled vehicle. The officers asked Zorc whether he wanted to file an incident report. Zorc mentioned that he suffered from a medical condition, so the police supervisor instructed the officers to let Zorc leave because charges could be sent by summons.

{¶ 10} At the close of the city's case, Zorc moved for judgment of acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A). The magistrate ordered that the parties brief the issue and scheduled a hearing for December 1, 2016. On that date, the trial court granted acquittal of the reckless operation charge, and Zorc decided to testify as to the remaining charge.

{¶ 11} Zorc's testimony reflected that he is age 64, is a Vietnam veteran who receives disability assistance. He suffers from Myasthenia Gravis, a chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder. Symptoms of the disease include muscle weakness, difficulty walking, and extreme fatigue. The symptoms are aggravated by stress and other activities.

{¶ 12} Zorc asserted that he was not aware of the police chase until it was upon him. He did see the Rocky River cruiser on the berm and was focused on changing lanes safely but there were vehicles in his way. At the point that Zorc approached the Rocky River cruiser, the speeding van passed him to his right, preventing him from moving over. Instead, Zorc states he slowed down and carefully passed the officers standing in the berm by the Rocky River cruiser. Officer Blazer deployed the stop sticks, puncturing the left tires of the van as well as Zorc's right front tire. Zorc confirmed that he did not receive a citation at the scene, but he did receive one by mail 30 days after the incident, which was two days after contacting the Rocky River police department to request reimbursement for the damaged tire.

{¶ 13} The magistrate found Zorc guilty of failing to change lanes and signed the dismissal of the reckless operation charge. 1 On December 8, 2016, Zorc filed objections to the magistrate's report. The city failed to file a brief in response to the objections in spite of the trial court's December 12, 2016 order. On February 6, 2017, after submission of the hearing transcripts, the trial court agreed to review the exhibits and transcripts prior to ruling on the objections.

{¶ 14} On March 6, 2017, the trial court ruled on the objections.

To rule on the objections filed by defendant herein, the Court read the transcript from the trial and viewed the dash cam videos marked as Joint Exhibit 1 and Joint Exhibit 2.
The Court finds that the two dash camera videos viewed along with the testimony show that the highway was not crowded at the time in question. Further, defendant did not activate his turn signal which he should have done if he was trying to move over to the lane on his right. The videos show defendant made no effort to move over and that had he slowed down and activated his turn signal he would have been able to do so. Based upon this review, the defendant's Objections to the Magistrate Decision are overruled.
The Court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate wherein she found defendant guilty of approaching a stationary public safety vehicle. This is now a final Judgment of this Court. Further, the Court adopts the recommendation as to sentencing. Fine is waived. Defendant owes costs and said costs are ordered to be paid by 3/30/17 by 4:00 p.m.

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 15} Zorc filed the instant appeal, challenging the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. We combine the assigned errors for analysis.

A. Standard of Review

{¶ 16} Crim.R. 29(A) tests the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Hoskin-Hudson , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103615, 2016-Ohio-5410

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Shabazz
2014 Ohio 1828 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
State v. Rudd
2016 Ohio 106 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Capp
2016 Ohio 295 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Hunter, Unpublished Decision (1-5-2006)
2006 Ohio 20 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
State v. Stewart, Unpublished Decision (2-23-2006)
2006 Ohio 813 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
State v. Hoskin-Hudson
2016 Ohio 5410 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Jenks
574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1991)
State v. Thompkins
678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
State v. Leonard
104 Ohio St. 3d 54 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)
State v. Wilson
113 Ohio St. 3d 382 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 Ohio 389, 105 N.E.3d 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-rocky-river-v-zorc-ohioctapp-2018.