State v. Justice

2024 Ohio 2574

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 5, 2024
• Docket: C-230591
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Justice, 2024-Ohio-2574.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230591 TRIAL NOS. C-23TRD-24768-A, B Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : O P I N I O N. MICHAEL JUSTICE, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgments Appealed From Are: Reversed in Part and Cause Remanded; Appeal Dismissed in Part

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 5, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Michael Justice appeals his conviction, after a bench trial, for operating

a motor vehicle with an invalid license plate. In two assignments of error, Justice

contends that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence and is contrary to

the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we reverse the

judgment of the trial court.

Factual Background

{¶2} On September 19, 2023, Michael Justice was charged with operating a

motor vehicle without a license and operating a motor vehicle with an invalid license

plate. He pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a bench trial.

{¶3} Deputy Michael Patrustie, a patrol officer for the Hamilton County

Sheriff’s Department, testified that he was patrolling near the Three Rivers schools

when a Jeep drove past him with a license plate tag that expired in 2022. Patrustie

drove behind the car and “ran the license plate” multiple times. He learned that the

tag had expired on November 27, 2022. The vehicle that was on his computer was a

2006 Lincoln station wagon and not the Jeep that he had pulled over.

{¶4} Justice had purchased the car a week prior but could not provide any

proof that he owned the vehicle. Justice said he had an insurance card but was unable

to provide a copy because his phone was not working. Patrustie retrieved the VIN

number of the Jeep, returned to his cruiser, and ran the number. The results of his

search revealed that the 1998 Jeep was registered to a woman who lived in Amelia.

According to Patrustie, the vehicle had no license plate attached to it. Patrustie

testified that the vehicle’s registration had expired in August 2021.

{¶5} Patrustie returned to the Jeep and asked Justice for his driver’s license.

2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Justice’s license had expired in 2021. Patrustie returned to his cruiser to verify the

license, and found the “license was in our system, expired, from 2021.” Patrustie

decided to tow the vehicle because the plates did not match the vehicle, Justice’s

driver’s license was invalid, and Justice could not provide proof of insurance.

{¶6} On cross-examination, Patrustie testified that Justice explained that the

plate was on the Jeep when he bought it, but Justice was unable to tell him when he

purchased the car and from whom he bought it. Justice further stated that he thought

he had 30 days to transfer the plates, and he had the car for a week. According to

Patrustie, when he ran the license plate number, he discovered that the plate on the

vehicle was registered to an owner who lived in Loveland, Ohio. Patrustie did not bring

a copy of the driver’s license or a copy of the system inquiry showing that the license

was expired.

{¶7} Justice testified that he was unaware that the plates were not valid

because they were on the car when he purchased it a week before the stop. Justice

admitted that he did not register the vehicle in his name when he purchased it, and

the car “is still in the process of being put in my name.” Justice further testified that

the dealer who sold him the car was supposed to put the vehicle in his name, and that

he had not yet obtained the title for the car.

{¶8} During closing arguments, Justice argued that the state failed to prove

that he recklessly violated the fictitious-plate statute because he was unaware that the

plates were invalid. He admitted that the driver’s license was expired.

{¶9} The trial court found Justice guilty of both charges. Justice appealed,

both charges, but in his brief, Justice does not challenge the driving-without-a- license

conviction, and he raises no assignment of error with respect to that conviction.

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as it relates to the A charge.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

{¶10} In his first assignment of error, Justice contends that his conviction was

not supported by sufficient evidence because the state failed to produce evidence that

he recklessly displayed a license plate registered to another vehicle.

{¶11} In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing

court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of

the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d

259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶12} In relevant part, R.C. 4549.08 provides:

(A) No person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle upon the public

roads and highways in this state if it displays a license plate or a

distinctive number or identification mark that meets any of the

following criteria:

(3) Belongs to another motor vehicle, provided that this section does not

apply to a motor vehicle that is operated on the public roads and

highways in this state when the motor vehicle displays license plates

that originally were issued for a motor vehicle that previously was

owned by the same person who owns the motor vehicle that is operated

on the public roads and highways in this state, during the thirty-day

period described in division (A)(4) of section 4503.12 of the Revised

Code.

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶13} The definition of “recklessly” is set forth in R.C. 2901.22(C):

A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the

consequences, the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk

that the person’s conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to

be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances

when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely

disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.

{¶14} The Legislative Commission Comment to the code section further

explains that a person acts recklessly when, “without caring about the consequences,

he obstinately disregards a known and significant possibility that his conduct is likely

to cause a certain result or be of a certain nature, or that certain circumstances are

likely to exist.”

{¶15} Justice argues that he did know that the plate was registered to another

vehicle because the plate was on the vehicle when he purchased it a week earlier. To

the extent that Justice allegedly believed that the plate was registered to the Jeep and

that he had 30 days to transfer the plate, “a ‘mistake of fact’ is not available as a defense

to a crime requiring a mental state of recklessness.” State v. Parrett, 12th Dist. Fayette

No. CA2014-02-002, 2014-Ohio-4524, ¶ 18, citing State v. Neville, 7th Dist. Noble No.

235, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 5519, 8 (Nov. 17, 1998) (finding the trial court did not

abuse its discretion in failing to give a jury instruction on “mistake of fact” as

defendant was not charged with a specific intent crime, but rather a crime that had the

requisite mental state of “recklessly”).

{¶16} To prove intent, the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that “intent,

lying as it does within the privacy of a person’s own thoughts, is not susceptible [to]

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

objective proof.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 60, 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995).

Instead, intent must often be inferred from the act itself and the surrounding

circumstances, including the acts and statements of the defendant surrounding the

time of the offense. State v. Hutchinson, 135 Ohio App.3d 459, 734 N.E.2d 454 (12th

Dist.1999).

{¶17} In this case, Justice admittedly drove a car that was not titled or

registered in his name. When he purchased the car, it contained a license plate that

he knew was not issued to him. Although Justice acknowledged that he was required

to obtain a license plate for the car, he instead chose to drive the car with a license

plate issued to another person and a tag that had expired in November 2022. The state

presented sufficient evidence that Justice acted recklessly in disregard of a known risk

by driving the car knowing he was required to obtain a plate for the vehicle. Viewing

the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, a reasonable factfinder could

conclude that Justice recklessly operated the vehicle with an invalid license plate.

{¶18} We overrule the assignment of error.

Manifest Weight of the Evidence

{¶19} Next, Justice argues that the conviction was contrary to the weight of

the evidence because the sole evidence that the plate was registered to another vehicle

was the testimony of Patrustie, and his testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay.

{¶20} In reviewing a manifest-weight challenge, an appellate court examines

the evidence in order to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support

a conviction. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

“The court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable

inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

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.” Id. at 387.

{¶21} At trial, Patrustie testified, without objection, that he “ran [Justice’s]

license plate” multiple times while in his cruiser. According to the result of his

searches, the license plate tag had expired on November 27, 2022, and the license plate

was registered to a 2006 Lincoln station wagon, not Justice’s Jeep. Patrustie testified

that his search revealed that the plate on the vehicle was registered to an owner who

lived in Loveland, Ohio. Patrustie did not bring the alleged system inquiry which

reportedly showed that the license was registered to another vehicle. Patrustie’s

testimony was based solely on his recollection of the information he purportedly

received from multiple, undocumented computer inquiries.

{¶22} Testimony as to the results of a computer inquiry “constitutes a textbook

example of hearsay” in that Patrustie repeated an out-of-court statement generated by

a computer inquiry, offered for the truth of the matter asserted. See State v. Pelmear,

6th Dist. Fulton Nos. F-21-003 and F-21-006, 2022-Ohio-1534, ¶ 44; State v. Garrett,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 87112 and 87123, 2006-Ohio-6020, ¶ 17 (testimony based on

an officer’s recollection of computer data is inadmissible hearsay); State v. Fink, 12th

Dist. Warren Nos. CA2008-10-118 and CA2008-10-119, 2009-Ohio-3538, ¶ 18

(officer’s testimony based on information from police computer was inadmissible

hearsay); State v. Castillo, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-14-14, 2015-Ohio-2738, ¶ 31-32

(sheriff’s testimony based on his recollection of computer generated information from

an ambiguous database was inadmissible hearsay); State v. Twomey, 1st Dist.

Hamilton Nos. C-830123 and C-830124, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 11757, 3 (December

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

21, 1983) (information that the officer testified that he obtained from a computer

inquiry, regarding the status of defendant’s driver’s license, was inadmissible

hearsay). Thus, the admission of Patrustie’s testimony regarding the results of the

computer inquiry rose to the level of plain error because the testimony was the only

evidence supporting the conviction. See Pelmear at 44.

{¶23} Although Justice contends that the admission of the hearsay resulted in

a conviction that was against the weight of the evidence, he is essentially arguing that

“that there is no evidence to support his convictions, thus raising a claim that his

convictions are based on insufficient evidence.” Id. at ¶ 33. See State v. Frum, 9th

Dist. Wayne No. 12CA0039, 2013-Ohio-1096, ¶ 4 (“[A] review of the weight of the

evidence necessarily involves an evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence in that,

in order for this Court to weigh the evidence, there must be evidence to weigh.”).

{¶24} However, we are required to consider all of the evidence admitted at

trial, regardless of whether it was admitted erroneously, when reviewing claims based

on the sufficiency or manifest weight of the evidence. See State v. Fleming, 2d Dist.

Clark No. 2021-CA-40, 2022-Ohio-1876, ¶ 27, citing State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d

202, 2009-Ohio-593, 903 N.E.2d 284; State v. Lawson, 2020-Ohio-6852, 164 N.E.3d

1130, ¶ 86 (2d Dist.); State v. Rosales, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27117, 2018-Ohio-

197, ¶ 16, citing State v. Johnson, 2015-Ohio-5491, 55 N.E.3d 648, ¶ 95 (2d Dist.).

Thus, even if the testimony was erroneously admitted, under our review, we must still

consider it. See State v. Benton, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-130556, C-130557 and C-

130558, 2014-Ohio-2163, ¶ 20; State v. Borden, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140245,

2015-Ohio-333, ¶ 12. On the record presented to the court, we cannot say that the trial

court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that we

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

must reverse the conviction. See Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386-387, 678 N.E.2d

541. The second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶25} In his second assignment of error, Justice argued that the admission of

the hearsay testimony was plain error but presented the argument as an issue rather

than a separate assignment of error. The state was afforded the opportunity to

respond to this issue in its brief.

{¶26} “Generally, appellate courts rule on assignments of error only and do

not address mere arguments.” State v. Green, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2018-T-0063,

2019-Ohio-1303, ¶ 18; App.R. 12(A)(1)(B). “It is common, however, for an appellate

court to take assignments of error from appellant’s brief arguments rather than

outright refuse to address the argument in the interest of justice.” Id. at ¶ 19, citing

State v. Shook, 4th Dist. Pike No. 13CA841, 2014-Ohio-3403 (although defendant’s

brief did not contain a separate statement of the assignments of error, rather than

dismiss the appeal, the appellate court synthesized an assignment of error from the

argument portion of the brief); State v. Lawrence, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2022-L-110,

2023-Ohio-3419, ¶ 46-47 (addressing an issue not properly raised as an assignment of

error in the interests of justice); Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. Denune, 132 Ohio App.3d

430, 725 N.E.2d 330 (10th Dist.1999) (addressing the merits because “the error

assigned from the trial court’s judgment is readily discernible from appellant’s

‘[s]tatement of issues presented’ ”); Germadnik v. Auld, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2017-

T-0113, 2018-Ohio-2889, ¶ 11 (although not properly briefed in a separate assignment

of error, an issue raised by the appellant was considered because the appellee was

afforded an opportunity to respond).

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶27} In the interests of justice, we will address this argument and hold that

the conviction must be reversed because the admission of Patrustie’s testimony as to

the results of his computer inquiry, the sole evidence supporting the conviction, was

plain error. See Pelmear, 6th Dist. Fulton Nos. F-21-003 and F-21-006, 2022-Ohio-

1534, at ¶ 44.

Conclusion

{¶28} Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the

cause to the trial court for a new trial consistent with this opinion with respect to the

B charge and dismiss the appeal with respect to the A charge.

Judgment reversed in part and cause remanded; Appeal dismissed in part.

CROUSE and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.

Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.