State v. Klotz

2024 Ohio 2864

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 29, 2024
• Docket: 2023-L-111
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Klotz, 2024-Ohio-2864.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-L-111

Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas

LEON L. KLOTZ, Trial Court No. 2022 CR 001139 Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Decided: July 29, 2024 Judgment: Affirmed

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Edward M. Heindel, 2200 Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Leon L. Klotz, appeals from his convictions in the Lake

County Court of Common Pleas relating to a motor vehicle accident. For the following

reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.

{¶2} On March 21, 2023, Klotz was indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury for

Tampering With Records, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2913.42(A)(1);

Falsification, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.13(A)(5); Driving

Under Suspension, an unclassified misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 4510.16(A); two speed limit violations, minor misdemeanors, in violation of R.C. 4511.21(A) and (D)(5);

Operation Without Reasonable Control, a minor misdemeanor, in violation of R.C.

4511.202(A); Vehicular Manslaughter, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of

R.C. 2903.06(A)(4); and Vehicular Homicide, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of

R.C. 2903.06(A)(3)(a).

{¶3} A bench trial was held on September 12-13 and 26, 2023. The following

pertinent testimony and evidence were presented:

{¶4} On August 26, 2022, Klotz purchased a used 2008 Dodge Ram truck from

JE Autoworks, a used car dealership, for approximately $3,000. Josh Egeland, the owner

of JE Autoworks, testified that he had purchased the truck from a dealership, test drove

it, and was not aware of any problems with the operability of the truck. According to

James Lothman, a car salesman at JE, when Klotz arrived to purchase the car around

4:30 p.m., he did not wish to test drive it. Lothman requested that he do so and Klotz

drove the truck down the street by the dealership, traveling at approximately 50 m.p.h.

{¶5} At around 4:45 to 5:00 p.m. on that date, two witnesses observed Klotz

driving the Dodge Ram on I-90 eastbound, the relevant portion of which had a speed limit

of 70 m.p.h. Anne Selleny observed the truck ahead of her move abruptly to the right

lane, quickly back into the left lane, then to the right again before it went perpendicular to

the road, travelled across the median, and hit a vehicle. She believed the driver was in a

hurry and was trying to get around a steady flow of traffic, given the abrupt nature of his

movements. Her 911 call was played during which she told the dispatcher, “it was

definitely the pickup’s fault. He was driving crazy. Going down 90, trying to get around

cars and whatever happened he shot [across] the median.”

Case No. 2023-L-111 {¶6} Laura Jones was also traveling on I-90 eastbound, at a speed of around 65

m.p.h., in the right-hand lane. She saw the truck approach to her left and pass by “very

quickly.” She believed it was coming up so fast it may hit the vehicle in front of it and she

began to pull to the shoulder. She saw the back of the truck move from side to side and

begin to spin before crossing over the median and hitting a vehicle.

{¶7} A 911 call made by Klotz was played, during which he indicated that he had

just purchased the truck and “something went wrong with it and it took me, flew across

the road on me and hit this lady and she’s hurt.”

{¶8} Sergeant Ryan Fox, a crash reconstructionist supervisor for the Ohio

Highway Patrol, indicated that the tire marks showed that Klotz had at some point

travelled outside of the right lane of travel toward the right berm, returned to the right lane,

travelled across the left lane, and through the median, entering the westbound lanes and

striking a Chevrolet Aveo. Sergeant Evan Mace, an assistant post commander with the

Highway Patrol, characterized the vehicle as “out of control,” evidenced by the tire

markings going sideways across the roadway.

{¶9} Mace indicated that there were no adverse weather conditions on the date

of the accident. No field sobriety tests were conducted and the investigation did not

indicate Klotz was distracted while driving. Following the accident, Mace observed that

Klotz’s truck had lost one tire, and the tire pressure on the remaining tires was 42 and 44

PSI on the two front tires and 28 PSI on the back tire.

{¶10} Highway Patrol Sergeant Jeremy Kindler testified that the driver of the Aveo

hit by Klotz, Kathryn Wise, was pronounced dead at the scene. A cell phone call made

by Klotz while in the police cruiser following the accident was played in which he indicated

Case No. 2023-L-111 “something happened to the truck” and he had not been speeding. In his statement to

the troopers, Klotz stated that a witness told him she saw “the driveshaft fall out from

underneath the truck” and Klotz indicated, “I think it pole-vaulted me, like the end came

up off the ground.” He stated he was driving around 65 or 70 m.p.h. and there was “no

response” from the steering but he may have over-steered. Klotz stated that the tire

pressure sensor had come on while he was driving.

{¶11} James Drozdowski, a crash reconstructionist with Introtech Accident

Reconstruction, examined Klotz’s vehicle to determine whether a mechanical failure

caused the crash. He testified that although the truck suffered damage in the crash, his

inspection did not reveal a mechanical failure which would have caused a loss of control

of the vehicle. He found no defect in the control arm, which controls steering, and the

lack of certain damage to the drivetrain indicated it became broken from the accident.

{¶12} Vincent Cronin, lead investigator with Introtech, discussed the

circumstances of the crash and concluded that “[t]he proximate cause of this crash in my

opinion was Mr. Klotz failing to maintain control of his vehicle.” He calculated that Klotz

was travelling approximately 83 m.p.h. preceding the loss of control. He indicated that

the tire that came with the truck would have been rated “P,” a passenger vehicle tire, but

the tires at the time of the crash were larger, and were “LT,” light truck tires. Because the

tires were larger than the recommended size, this would have caused the speedometer

to read 79 m.p.h. rather than 83 m.p.h. Cronin testified that raising the vehicle with larger

tires could affect stability when turning quickly. It could also make the vehicle more

difficult to control “in an over-steering situation.” He indicated that low pressure in a tire

could contribute to a loss of control in driving a vehicle.

Case No. 2023-L-111 {¶13} Matt Reesh, an investigator with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles,

testified that, at the time of the accident, Klotz had a suspended driver’s license due to

failure to have insurance.

{¶14} The trial court found Klotz guilty of each of the counts as charged in the

indictment. At the sentencing hearing, the court ordered Klotz to serve consecutive prison

terms of nine months for Tampering With Records and 18 months for Vehicular Homicide,

for an aggregate prison term of 27 months and merged the remaining offenses.

{¶15} Klotz timely appeals and raises the following assignments of error:

{¶16} “[1.] Klotz was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel.

{¶17} “[2.] The convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence.

{¶18} “[3.] The convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.”

{¶19} In his first assignment of error, Klotz argues that it was ineffective

assistance for defense counsel not to consult and hire an accident reconstruction expert

given his defense that the vehicle experienced a sudden mechanical failure causing him

to lose control.

{¶20} To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove

“(1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and

(2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant resulting in an

unreliable or fundamentally unfair outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio

St.3d 378, 388-389 (2000), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688

(1984). “To show that a defendant has been prejudiced by counsel’s deficient

performance, the defendant must prove that there exists a reasonable probability that,

were it not for counsel’s errors, the result of the trial would have been different.” State v.

Case No. 2023-L-111 Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989), paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶21} It has been consistently held that “the failure to call an expert and instead

rely on cross-examination does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v.

Nicholas, 66 Ohio St.3d 431, 436 (1993), citing State v. Thompson, 33 Ohio St.3d 1, 10-

11 (1987); State v. Wilks, 2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 200; State v. Mallory, 2021-Ohio-1542, ¶ 42

(11th Dist.). Arguments of ineffectiveness for failure to obtain expert witnesses have been

rejected where there is a failure to identify which expert witnesses should have been

called or what they would have said, since such an argument is merely speculative. State

v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 66; see State v. Bunch, 2022-Ohio-4723, ¶ 36 (the failure

to call an expert was not ineffective assistance because the courts cannot consider

evidence outside the record and are limited to “mere speculation”). Further, counsel may

find obtaining such a witness could ultimately be unfavorable to the client, a decision

which is a matter of trial strategy. State v. Mallory, 2021-Ohio-1542, ¶ 43 (11th Dist.)

(rejecting ineffective assistance claim where it was argued an expert should have been

obtained to review DNA data but there was “no indication in the record that defense

counsel . . . found the state’s DNA evidence to be lacking or that the results of further

DNA analysis would have been favorable to the defense”).

{¶22} A review of the record reveals that defense counsel adopted the strategy of

arguing that Klotz was not negligent in operating the vehicle because it was new to him

and “the tires on the vehicle are too big for th[e] truck” which could render the vehicle

unstable and also result in an inaccurate speedometer reading. These arguments were

advanced in opening and closing arguments. Counsel elicited testimony from Cronin on

this topic during cross-examination. Given that there were multiple experts who examined

Case No. 2023-L-111 the circumstances, with one outlining in detail the lack of a mechanical failure and another

indicating that the accident was due to Klotz’s failure to maintain control of the vehicle, it

appears counsel chose this issue to focus on as a matter of trial strategy. It is possible

that defense counsel determined there would be no benefit to retaining an expert who

may have reached the same conclusions as the prosecutor’s witnesses.

{¶23} State v. Smith, 2000 WL 1876660 (11th Dist. Dec. 22, 2000), cited by Klotz,

held that trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to present an accident reconstruction

report. The court concluded that the focus of the defense was to show that appellant was

not driving under the influence of cocaine, and, thus, there was “little reason to question

the accident reconstruction theory.” Id. at *7. Similarly, here, counsel primarily advanced

a defense relating to the tires, supported in part by testimony elicited through cross-

examination, rather than any mechanical failures of the vehicle. Nonetheless, even if this

were not the case, Smith does not dispute the general proposition that the decision

whether to hire an expert is a matter of trial strategy and restates this principle. Id. at *6.

Further, Smith observed that the defendant suggested no evidence to alert counsel “that

the prosecution's accident reconstruction reports were vulnerable.” Id. at *7. Similarly,

here we do not conclude that defense counsel was ineffective in determining that

disputing the conclusion on the mechanics of the truck would have been unsuccessful.

{¶24} The first assignment of error is without merit.

{¶25} In his second assignment of error, Klotz argues that his convictions were

not supported by sufficient evidence since the State “failed to prove the proximate cause

of death for the victim.” In his third assignment of error, the substance of Klotz’s argument

is as follows: “Again, the State did not present any evidence regarding the proximate

Case No. 2023-L-111 cause of this crash. This mandates a finding that the conviction was against the manifest

weight of the evidence.” We will address these assignments of error jointly since they are

interrelated.

{¶26} In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he 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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the

syllabus.

{¶27} Whereas “sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy as to whether

the evidence is legally sufficient to support a verdict as a matter of law, . . . weight of the

evidence addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief.” State v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-

2202, ¶ 25, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386-387 (1997). “[A] reviewing

court asks whose evidence is more persuasive—the state’s or the defendant’s?” Id. An

appellate court must consider all the evidence in the record, the reasonable inferences,

the credibility of the witnesses, and 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.” (Citation omitted.) Thompkins at

387. “Since there must be sufficient evidence to take a case to the jury, it follows that ‘a

finding that a conviction is supported by the weight of the evidence necessarily must

include a finding of sufficiency.’” (Citation omitted.) State v. Barnes, 2023-Ohio-353, ¶

43 (11th Dist.).

{¶28} While Klotz challenges his “convictions” in a general sense, the substance

of his argument relates to the convictions for Vehicular Homicide and/or Vehicular

Case No. 2023-L-111 Manslaughter. He references R.C. 2903.06 as the “vehicular homicide statute” but cites

only language from R.C. 2903.06(A)(4), which gave rise to a conviction for Vehicular

Manslaughter. He does not specifically challenge whether the state proved negligence

to sustain a conviction for Vehicular Homicide under R.C. 2903.06(A)(3)(a) but instead

whether he caused the victim’s death.

{¶29} Pursuant to R.C. 2903.06, “[n]o person, while operating or participating in

the operation of a motor vehicle . . . shall cause the death of another” either “[n]egligently”

(Vehicular Homicide) or “[a]s the proximate result of committing a violation of any

provision of any section contained in Title XLV of the Revised Code that is a minor

misdemeanor or of a municipal ordinance that . . . is substantially equivalent to any

provision of any section contained in Title XLV of the Revised Code that is a minor

misdemeanor” (Vehicular Manslaughter). R.C. 2903.06(A)(3)(a) and (4). “It is well

established that the definition of ‘cause’ in criminal cases is identical to the definition of

‘proximate cause’ in civil cases. . . . The general rule is that a defendant’s conduct is the

proximate cause of injury or death to another if the defendant’s conduct (1) is a

‘substantial factor’ in bringing about the harm and (2) there is no other rule of law relieving

the defendant of liability.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Naylor, 2024-Ohio-1648, ¶ 51

(11th Dist.).

{¶30} Klotz argues in his sufficiency assignment that the State failed to establish

the cause of the victim’s death. In his manifest weight assignment, he contends that the

State failed to prove “the proximate cause of th[e] crash.” It appears he is intending to

reiterate his sufficiency argument in the context of a manifest weight argument regarding

whether the accident caused the victim’s death. In the interest of justice, we will address

Case No. 2023-L-111 both the cause of death and the cause of the crash.

{¶31} Klotz contends that the State failed to present adequate evidence of the

cause or manner of death, particularly due to its failure to have a coroner or medical

professional testify to this issue: “lt may seem unreasonable to argue that the crash did

not cause the death of Ms. Wise. Yet, that is the burden of proof that the State shoulders.

The State should present some evidence that the accident actually caused the death.

Having a Sargent read a death certificate does not carry that burden because the Sargent

has no personal knowledge; he is merely reading a piece of paper.”

{¶32} Klotz fails to provide authority requiring a coroner or other medical

professional’s testimony to establish a cause of death in this type of case. In his

argument, he cites State v. Galvin, 2016-Ohio-5404 (8th Dist.) and State v. Carter, 2007-

Ohio-5570 (2d Dist.), which provide examples of cases where a medical examiner or

forensic pathologist presented testimony regarding a cause of death. Neither case,

however, rules on or addresses the issue of whether such testimony is necessary.

Evidence of a defendant’s cause of death can be established through direct and

circumstantial evidence tending to demonstrate to the finder of fact the cause of the

victim’s death. See State v. Beaver, 119 Ohio App.3d 385, 393 (11th Dist. 1997)

(observing that circumstantial evidence allowed the jury to infer the shooting was the

cause of death and that “[e]xpert medical evidence is not necessary in cases where the

injuries are severe enough that the jury can infer that the injuries caused the death”);

State v. Musgrave, 2000 WL 502688, *11-12 (5th Dist. Apr. 24, 2000) (circumstantial

evidence can be used to establish the cause of death).

{¶33} The death certificate and autopsy report were admitted as records for the

Case No. 2023-L-111 court’s consideration to demonstrate the cause of death. They indicate that the victim

died from blunt impact to the head, trunk and extremities with visceral, vascular, and

skeletal injuries and the manner of death was accidental. While it is accurate that there

was no testimony provided to elaborate on these findings and they were discussed only

in the testimony of Sergeant Kindler, in which he agreed that the cause of death was

determined to be a result of injuries from the accident, Klotz stipulated to the authenticity

and admissibility of these exhibits and they constituted admissible evidence to

demonstrate the cause of death. “The effect of the stipulation is that the exhibit is

evidence in the case.” In re T.W., 2021-Ohio-3037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.). Further, autopsy

reports are nontestimonial and, thus, may be admitted without the testimony of a medical

examiner. State v. Craig, 2006-Ohio-4571, ¶ 73-88.

{¶34} Further, there was additional evidence showing that the accident was the

cause of the victim’s death. In Klotz’s 911 call, he indicated that he hit her vehicle, she

was hurt, she needed to be “extricated” from the vehicle, she was “moving every now and

then, but she doesn’t seem to be conscious,” and requested that emergency services

“hurry.” Jones, one of the witnesses, expressed the impact of the incident, stating in her

911 call, “I’m certain the driver of the small car is hurt” and testified that, “I saw it hit so

hard all I could think of was there’s no way that person is okay.” The dash camera video

included a conversation in which Klotz inquired about whether the victim died and was

advised that she had. There was no evidence to demonstrate that the victim died from

any cause other than the accident that occurred and she was pronounced dead at the

scene. The convictions were not against the weight of the evidence and, thus, were also

supported by sufficient evidence.

Case No. 2023-L-111 {¶35} To the extent that Klotz stated that there was a lack of evidence to

demonstrate “proximate cause of this crash,” no argument is presented in support of such

conclusion. Nonetheless, we observe that testimony was presented from several

witnesses that the crash resulted when Klotz’s vehicle spun out of control and crossed

the median. Cronin’s testimony demonstrated that Klotz was speeding, which can make

a driver more likely to lose control. Jones also testified regarding the fact that Klotz was

driving “quickly” and Selleny testified regarding the manner in which he was quickly

moving from lane to lane. It was not against the weight of the evidence to determine that

speeding and/or failure to control the vehicle resulted in the accident and the victim’s

death.

{¶36} The second and third assignments of error are without merit.

{¶37} For the foregoing reasons, Klotz’s convictions in the Lake County Court of

Common Pleas are affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

Case No. 2023-L-111