State v. Hightower

2012 Ohio 1959
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided April 18, 2012·No. 11CAA80071·Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Hightower, 2012-Ohio-1959.]

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. -vs- Case No. 11CAA080071 BRANDON M. HIGHTOWER

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 11CRI030146A

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 18, 2012

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

CAROL HAMILTON O'BRIEN WILLIAM T. CRAMER Prosecuting Attorney 470 Olde Worthington Road, Suite 200 ERIC C. PENKAL Westerville, Ohio 43082 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 140 N. Sandusky Street 3rd Floor Delaware, Ohio 43015 Delaware County, Case No. 11CAA080071 2

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Brandon M. Hightower appeals his conviction entered

by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On March 7, 2011, Appellant and Anthony McClain were travelling in a

vehicle on Interstate 71. Deputy Paul Simpson of the Delaware County Sheriff’s

Department observed the vehicle travelling over the speed limit, and the rear license

plate covered by a tinted plastic covering. As a result, Deputy Simpson initiated a traffic

stop.

{¶3} Upon approaching the vehicle, Deputy Simpson noticed a smell of raw

marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Sergeant Larry Dore of the Delaware County

Sheriff’s Office who had responded to the scene to assist Deputy Simpson, had his K-9

unit conduct a walk-around of the vehicle. The dog indicated on the vehicle for drugs.

Deputy Simpson then asked Appellant and McClain to exit the vehicle. Instead,

Appellant fled the scene of the traffic stop at a high rate of speed leading the officers on

a high speed chase.

{¶4} During the chase, a weapon and drugs were thrown from the passenger

side of the vehicle. While Appellant or McClain were disposing the evidence, Deputy

Simpson and Sergeant Dore witnessed Appellant run through several red lights, swerve

in and out of traffic, go left of the roadway, and travel in excess of 90 mph in a high

traffic commercial area. Further testimony established Appellant traveled in excess of

60 mph in a 35 mph zone. Delaware County, Case No. 11CAA080071 3

{¶5} As a result, Appellant was charged with failing to comply with an order or

signal of a police officer, thereby causing a substantial risk of serious physical harm to

persons or property, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) and (C)(5)(a)(ii); tampering with

evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12; having a firearm while under disability, in

violation of R.C. 2923.13; and trafficking in marijuana, in violation of R.C. 2925.03.

{¶6} During trial, the court dismissed the having a firearm under disability

charge for lack of evidence pursuant to Criminal Rule 29. The jury subsequently found

Appellant not guilty of trafficking in marijuana, but guilty of the failure to comply and

tampering with evidence charges. The trial court sentenced Appellant to two years for

failure to comply and one year for tampering with evidence, to be served consecutively.

The trial court also imposed a fine of $3,500 and a six year driver’s license suspension.

{¶7} Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:

{¶8} “I. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS

AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO

CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PRESENT

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT’S OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

CAUSED A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM TO PERSONS OR

PROPERTY.

{¶9} “II. THE JURY’S FINDING THAT APPELLANT’S OPERATION OF THE

MOTOR VEHICLE CAUSED A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM

TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF

EVIDENCE.” Delaware County, Case No. 11CAA080071 4

I, II.

{¶10} Appellant’s first and second assignments of error raise common and

interrelated issues; therefore, we will address the arguments together.

{¶11} 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 App.3d 172, 175. See also, State v.

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997–Ohio–52. The granting of a new trial “should be

exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the

conviction.” Martin at 175.

{¶12} We note the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the

witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 182,

certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 881. The trier of fact “has the best opportunity to view

the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness, something that does not

translate well on the written page.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 1997–

Ohio–260. Delaware County, Case No. 11CAA080071 5

{¶13} Appellant was convicted of violating R.C. 2921.331(B)(C)(5)(a)(ii), which

reads:

{¶14} “(B) No person shall operate a motor vehicle so as willfully to elude or flee

a police officer after receiving a visible or audible signal from a police officer to bring the

person's motor vehicle to a stop.

{¶15} “(C)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to comply with an

order or signal of a police officer.

{¶16} “***

{¶17} “(5)(a) A violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the third

degree if the jury or judge as trier of fact finds any of the following by proof beyond a

reasonable doubt:

{¶18} “***

{¶19} “(ii) The operation of the motor vehicle by the offender caused a

substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.***”

{¶20} At the trial in this matter, Deputy Paul Simpson testified:

{¶21} “Q. Did you ever lose sight of Mr. Hightower throughout this car chase?

{¶22} “A. No.

{¶23} “Q. Where did Mr. Hightower go?

{¶24} “A. As we approached the off-ramp, at that point you got your left lane is

going to be headed eastbound on 36/37, your right lane is going to be headed

westbound on 36/37 and that’s all there is, there’s no straight lane, just left and right.

There was probably maybe eight or ten cars in each lane. Eastbound and westbound

pretty much they were sitting stuck at the light. And at that point Mr. Hightower then Delaware County, Case No. 11CAA080071 6

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

State v. Hightower, 2012 Ohio 1959 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).

2012 Ohio 1959 (State v. Hightower) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
State v. Martin
485 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1983)
State v. Jamison
552 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1990)
State v. Jenks
574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1991)
Davis v. Flickinger
674 N.E.2d 1159 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
State v. Thompkins
678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)