[Cite as State v. Delong, 2016-Ohio-4871.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MORROW COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsAARON P. DELONG 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. 16CA003 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Morrow County Municipal 

Court, Case No. 2016TRD1062 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 5, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

CHARLES HOWLAND AARON P. DELONG, PRO SE 

Prosecuting Attorney 2837 Lee Rd. 

60 E. High St. Shaker Heights, OH 44120 

Mount Gilead, OH 43338 
Morrow County, Case No. 16CA003 2

Hoffman, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Aaron P. DeLong appeals his conviction on one count 

of speeding, a minor misdemeanor, entered by the Morrow County Municipal Court. 

Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE 

{¶2} On February 15, 2016, Appellant was cited for speeding, in violation of R.C. 

4511.21(D)(4), a minor misdemeanor offense. Appellant elected to proceed to a bench 

trial, pro se, to challenge his citation in the Morrow County Municipal Court. 

{¶3} At trial on March 24, 2016, the State called Ohio State Highway Patrol 

Trooper Kamal Nelson as the prosecution’s only witness. Trooper Nelson testified that on 

February 15, 2016, he utilized a Series II Python Radar speed measuring device on 

Interstate 71 in Morrow County, Ohio and recorded Appellant’s speed at 83 mph in a 70 

mph speed zone. He further testified, prior to the radar measurement, he had visually 

estimated Appellant’s speed at 85 mph. Tr. at 11-15. 

{¶4} Trooper Nelson testified as to his training, operation and calibration of the 

Series II Python Radar device prior to and during operation on the date in question. The 

state then rested its case. 

{¶5} Appellant did not object to or cross-examine Trooper Nelson. Appellant did 

not offer any evidence at trial. Rather, at the close of the State’s case, Appellant moved 

the trial court for a Criminal Rule 29 motion for acquittal. The trial court denied the motion. 

{¶6} Appellant then moved the trial court for a Rule 201(e) hearing. Again, the 

trial court denied the motion. 

{¶7} Appellant filed this appeal, assigning as error, 
Morrow County, Case No. 16CA003 3

{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF 

MPH INDUSTRIES, INC.’S PYTHON SERIES II MOVING RADAR UNIT WITHOUT: 

EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THE TRIAL TO ITS 

CONSTRUCTION, ACCURACY, AND RELIABILITY; THE TRIAL COURT PREVIOUSLY 

HEARING EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY FOR THE DEVICE TO ITS 

CONSTRUCTION, ACCURACY, AND RELIABILITY; A SUPERIOR COURT IN THE 

STATE OF OHIO PREVIOUSLY HEARING OR ACCEPTING EXPERT WITNESS 

TESTIMONY FOR THE DEVICE TO ITS CONSTRUCTION, ACCURACY AND 

RELIABILITY. 

{¶9} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING NEW EVIDENCE FROM 

THE PROSECUTION AFTER THE STATE RESTED ITS CASE IN CHIEF. 

{¶10} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION 

FOR AN EVIDENCE RULE 201(E) HEARING ON THE JUDICIAL NOTICE 

REFERENCED IN THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR.” 

I, II, and III. 

{¶11} We find Appellant’s assigned errors raise common and interrelated issues; 

therefore, we will address the arguments together. 

{¶12} Initially, we note, this case has been assigned to the Court’s accelerated 

calendar docket according to Ohio Appellate Rule 11 and this Court’s Local Rule 6(B); 

therefore, pursuant to Ohio App. Rule 11 governing accelerated calendar cases, “It shall 

be sufficient compliance with Appellate Rule 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the 

court’s decision as to each error to be in brief conclusionary form.” 
Morrow County, Case No. 16CA003 4

{¶13} Appellant did not object to or rebut the testimony offered by Trooper Nelson 

at trial. Rather, Appellant waited until after the state rested its case to move the trial court 

for a Criminal Rule 29 motion for acquittal. 

{¶14} A motion for acquittal at the close of the state's case tests the sufficiency of 

the evidence. Pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A), a trial court must construe the evidence in a 

light most favorable to the state and determine whether reasonable minds could reach 

different conclusions concerning whether the evidence proves each element of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bridgeman (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 261, 263, 9 O.O.3d 

401, 401–402, 381 N.E.2d 184, 185. An appellate court undertakes a de novo review and 

will not reverse the trial court's judgment unless reasonable minds could only reach the 

conclusion that the evidence failed to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 

doubt. State v. White (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 564, 568, 584 N.E.2d 1255, 1258. See, 

also, State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the 

syllabus. 

{¶15} A Criminal Rule 29 motion is not a substitute for failing to object during the 

state’s presentation of evidence. We find Appellant waived any argument with regard to 

judicial notice by failing to timely object. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying 

Appellant’s motion for acquittal or motion for judicial notice. The trial court also did not 

err in denying Appellant’s motion for a Rule 201 hearing as the Rule pertains to 

adjudicative facts or facts of the case, not evidentiary issues. 

{¶16} Appellant’s first, second and third assigned errors are overruled. 
Morrow County, Case No. 16CA003 5

{¶17} Appellant’s conviction in the Morrow County Municipal Court is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur