[Cite as State v. Marshall, 2013-Ohio-2978.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsJEFF L. MARSHALL 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court 

of Common Pleas, Case No. 

 2011 CR 12 0290 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 9, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

RYAN STYER GERALD A. LATANICH 

Tuscarawas County Prosecutor Tuscarawas County Public Defender Office 

R. SCOTT DEEDRICK 153 North Broadway 

Assistant County Prosecutor New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 

for Tuscarawas County 

125 East High Avenue 

New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 2

Hoffman, P.J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jeff L. Marshall appeals his conviction entered by the 

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

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} On December 13, 2012, Appellant was indicted on two counts of felony 

OVI, in violation of R.C. 4511.19; one count of failure to stop after an accident on public 

roads or highways, in violation of R.C. 4549.02; and one count of possession of drugs, 

in violation of R.C. 2925.11. 

{¶3} Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of all the charged 

offenses. The trial court entered convictions based on the jury’s verdict and sentenced 

Appellant to a mandatory term in the Ohio Department of Corrections, and to complete 

a program at a community based correctional facility. 

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

{¶5} “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR, BY 

DENYING THE APPELLANT A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE 6TH AND 14TH

AMENDMENT, WHEN IT REFUSED TO REMOVE A POTENTIAL JUROR FOR 

CAUSE WHEN REQUESTED BY THE APPELLANT. 

{¶6} “II. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL TO ESTABLISH 

THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE PERSON NAMED IN THE FIVE PRIOR OVI 

CONVICTIONS, THIS VIOLATES THE 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.” 

 

1

 A rendition of the underlying facts is unnecessary for our resolution of this appeal. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 3

I. 

{¶7} In the first assignment of error, Appellant maintains the trial court erred in 

denying his request to remove a juror for cause. Specifically, Appellant asserts during 

voir dire, Juror Hart indicated she would not follow the law and was biased; therefore, 

should have been removed for cause. 

{¶8} Appellant cites R.C. 2945.25. The statute reads, 

{¶9} “A person called as a juror in a criminal case may be challenged for the 

following causes:” * * * 

{¶10} "(B) That he is possessed of a state of mind evincing enmity or bias 

toward the defendant or the state; but no person summoned as a juror shall be 

disqualified by reason of a previously formed or expressed opinion with reference to the 

guilt or innocence of the accused, if the court is satisfied, from examination of the juror 

or from other evidence, that he will render an impartial verdict according to the law and 

the evidence submitted to the jury at the trial;" 

{¶11} The ultimate question is whether the juror swore he could set aside any 

opinion he might hold and decide the case on the evidence, and whether the juror's 

protestation of impartiality should be believed. State v. Perez (2009), 124 Ohio St.3d 

122. The proper test to determine a juror's bias is "whether the nature and strength of 

the opinion formed are such as in law necessarily to raise the presumption of partiality." 

State v. Blanton (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 162. The burden is on the challenger. Id. 

Unless it is shown the juror actually has such an opinion, in the mind of the juror as will 

raise the presumption of partiality, the juror need not necessarily be set aside. Id.; State 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 4

v. Wiley (1981), 5 Ohio App.3d 86. The trial court's determination cannot be overruled 

absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Wilson (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 203. 

{¶12} Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion in not excusing Juror 

Hart for cause. Counsel for Appellant asked the prospective jurors whether the 

allegation of five prior OVI convictions caused them major concerns. The following 

exchange occurred on the record during voir dire, 

{¶13} “The Court: Mr. Cooke, I’m just going to go ahead and interject for 

everybody here. The, the facts are going to be presented about what happened on a 

specific day and so part of the elements of what happened on that specific day, and 

unfortunately I don’t have them committed to memory, but would be, you know, on this 

day and this time that the elements of a, of a operating a vehicle under the influence 

occurred and, and that would have something to do with the impairment and, and 

operating a vehicle. But another part of that that raises it to the, the level that it is would 

be that the State would have to put forth some evidence to show that there were those 

prior convictions. Mr. Latanich is phrasing it as an alleged priors because he doesn’t 

have to prove it, they do. And so that, that would be an element that, that raises the 

seriousness of the offense. But it doesn’t change the fact that the first thing you look at 

is whether or not on that day these certain things occurred. And so I don’t know if that 

clarifies it, I mean for some of the people that are struggling with the idea that, that there 

are some priors, the first thing you have to look at though is whether or not the offense 

occurred on this day. And then, if you find that it, that the State proved it, then you 

would go on to determine whether or not the State also proved that there were priors. 

And that has to do with enhancing or, or elevating the level of the offense. Okay. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 5

{¶14} “Mr. Latanich: Answered your questions? 

{¶15} “Juror: Yeah. 

{¶16} “Mr. Latanich: Okay. Ms. Hart, I believed you raised your hand. 

{¶17} “Juror: Yes. 

{¶18} “Mr. Latanich: Okay. Does the fact that they’re alleging five prior 

convictions, does that lessen the burden of proof in this case in your mind? 

{¶19} “Juror: I hate to say it but yes, because to me it just sounds like a pattern 

of problems. 

{¶20} “Mr. Latanich: Is there any way how you could put that out of your mind 

and, and once again just look at the evidence initially for whether he was under the 

influence and then look at the evidence as to whether or not there’s five prior 

convictions? 

{¶21} “Juror: Well I could try to, but it would still be in the back of my mind, all of 

the previous. 

{¶22} “Mr. Latanich: So you think the burden of proof then is, is lessened in this 

case for Jeff in your mind? 

{¶23} “Juror: I hate to say it, but yes. 

{¶24} “* * * 

{¶25} “The Court: I’m going to interrupt one more time because, as far as stating 

how much credibility you would give someone’s testimony, your instructions from me at 

the end would be that you simply weigh the testimony of everybody regardless of 

whether they’re under oath. It’s still up to the jury to decide what testimony to believe 

and what not to believe. And my instruction would be that you should give the 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 6

Defendant the same attention that you would any other witness, that you would weigh 

the credibility of the Defendant in the same way that you would weigh the credibility of 

any other witness. And so, I think the question right now is, as you sit here today, if I, 

and go ahead and correct me Mr. Latanich if I’m wrong, but you were just asking as, as 

they sit today, would you not believe anything he said if he testified. 

{¶26} “* * * 

{¶27} “The Court: Okay, alright. That’s what I needed to know. And there were, 

I was trying to keep up with keeping notes on different answers to some of the 

questions asked, but I, I think I, need some clarification mainly from Mr. Maurer and Ms. 

Hart. As, some of the questions started to come up on being able to present, give, give 

the Defendant a fair trial, presume him innocent, give his testimony the same kind of 

review that you would give any other testimony. So, during that whole line of 

questioning, somewhere in there I, I lost track of where you stand so, Again, I’ve already 

mentioned that my instruction ultimately would be that any witness who’s placed on the, 

under oath to give testimony, their credibility or the weight that you give that testimony is 

still entirely up to the jury. And so, whether they’re in uniform, whether they’re, you 

know, the fact that they’re under oath, you still have to use the, the tests of credibility 

that we all use in our lives and, and weigh that testimony yourself. Would you be able 

to give, weigh the testimony of the Defendant just as you would anyone else in light of 

everything that you’ve heard so far? I guess I’ll ask Ms. Hart first. 

{¶28} “Juror: I, I am not, how do I want to say it, I don’t like to say someone’s 

guilty unless I know they’re guilty - - 

{¶29} “The Court: Uh, hm. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 7

{¶30} “Juror: - - so it would depend, like you say, on the evidence. 

{¶31} “The Court: Okay. 

{¶32} “Juror: I would do my best but what I was trying to say, it just seemed like 

if he had that many things against him, it just seems like it’s a pattern of problems with 

it. That’s, that’s my opinion. 

{¶33} “The Court: Uh, hm. The, well and, and what we, what we would be 

asking, what we are asking is that you reserve any judgment about guilty, or not, being 

not guilty or not guilty until you hear all of the evidence. 

{¶34} “Juror: Right. 

{¶35} “The Court: And what we don’t want is somebody to sit here right now and 

say, well he’s guilty until he shows me he’s innocent. Because that’s not the way our 

system works, you know, right now he is innocent until the State proves that he is guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt and they would have to prove all of those elements. Mr. 

Marshall has the option of not testifying at all, and because all of the burden is on the 

State of Ohio to prove him guilty and so, you know, if he, if he doesn’t, and my other 

instruction would be that if he does not testify, you, you also cannot consider that for 

any purpose. And so I only had a note of, on the issue of credibility with you was, was 

kind of where I had caught that. 

{¶36} “Juror: Uh, hm. 

{¶37} “The Court: But, you know, overall do you think that you could listen to the 

facts of this case, this particular day and this incident, and determine whether the State 

proved all of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 8

{¶38} “Juror: I would say yeah, I mean, the way I look at it, if there’s enough 

evidence against him - - 

{¶39} “The Court: Uh, hm. 

{¶40} “Juror: - - then in my eyes I would say he’s guilty. If there’s enough 

evidence.” 

{¶41} Tr. at 74-76; 78; 86-88. 

{¶42} In light of the above, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Appellant's request to remove the juror for cause. 

{¶43} The first assignment of error is overruled. 

II. 

{¶44} In the second assignment of error, Appellant maintains his conviction is 

against the sufficiency of the evidence. 

{¶45} Our review of the constitutional sufficiency of evidence to support a 

criminal conviction is governed by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 

2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which requires a court of appeals to 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 beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Id.; see also McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 130 S.Ct. 665, 673, 175 L.Ed.2d 

582(2010) (reaffirming this standard); State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163, 926 N.E.2d 

1239, 2010–Ohio–1017, ¶ 146; State v. Clay, 187 Ohio App.3d 633, 933 N.E.2d 296, 

2010–Ohio–2720, ¶ 68. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 9

{¶46} In the case sub judice, Appellant maintains there was insufficient evidence 

before the jury upon which they could have found the five prior convictions for driving 

under the influence of alcohol were against Appellant. 

{¶47} R.C. 2945.75(B)(1) reads in pertinent part, 

{¶48} "(B)(1) Whenever in any case it is necessary to prove a prior conviction, a 

certified copy of the entry of judgment in such prior conviction together with evidence 

sufficient to identify the defendant named in the entry as the offender in the case at bar, 

is sufficient to prove such prior conviction. 

{¶49} "(2) Whenever in any case it is necessary to prove a prior conviction of an 

offense for which the registrar of motor vehicles maintains a record, a certified copy of 

the record that shows the name, date of birth, and social security number of the 

accused is prima-facie evidence of the identity of the accused and prima-facie evidence 

of all prior convictions shown on the record. The accused may offer evidence to rebut 

the prima-facie evidence of the accused's identity and the evidence of prior convictions. 

Proof of a prior conviction of an offense for which the registrar maintains a record may 

also be proved as provided in division (B)(1) of this section. 

{¶50} "(3) If the defendant claims a constitutional defect in any prior conviction, 

the defendant has the burden of proving the defect by a preponderance of the 

evidence." 

{¶51} Captain Shawn Nelson of the New Philadelphia Police Department 

testified at trial herein, 

{¶52} “Q. Captain, I’m going to hand you what’s been marked as State’s Exhibits 

I through M and have you take a look. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 10

{¶53} “Mr. Deedrick: I’d like the record to reflect that these were shown to 

counsel for the Defendant and had previously been provided in discovery. 

{¶54} “Q. Do you recognize these documents? 

{¶55} “Yeah, these are what I would say, describe as certified Court records 

showing prior convictions of OVI and they, each one has Jeff Marshall as the Defendant 

with a date of birth of nine twenty-one seventy. Yeah, they’re all, Mr. Marshall is the 

Defendant and I can read the dates if you want me to read them into the record. 

{¶56} “Q. Um, just if you could read the case numbers, um, and the dates, the 

file stamped dates. 

{¶57} “A. I’m not sure if I’ll be able to do the case numbers completely here, hold 

on. I’ll start with this one. This is a traffic slash criminal case from o-four, TRC 

0400066A-B and criminal case 0400019A-C. 

{¶58} “Q. What number is that, or letter exhibit? Turn it over. ‘ 

{¶59} “A. I’m sorry, that’s L. 

{¶60} “Q. Okay. 

{¶61} “A. This one’s going to be a K. It’s traffic case 9008488A,9608488, 

9608488C, B and D, it looks like they’re all the same numbers, they did it differently 

back then apparently. And again, Mr. Marshall and it’s Exhibit K. Do you want me to 

continue? 

{¶62} “Q. Go ahead. 

{¶63} “A. This is case number 2005CRA699 and that’s Exhibit M. And this one 

is 49-90-TRC-9083 and 9092 and 9-90 criminal case 1348, 1349 and 1350 and that’s 

Exhibit I. and case Number 9500003A-E and that’s Exhibit J. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 11

{¶64} “Q. And these are certified copies of judgment entries from various 

Courts? 

{¶65} “A. Yes sir. 

{¶66} “Q. Okay. And they are versus Jeff Marshall, is that the Defendant in this 

case? 

{¶67} “A. Yes sir. 

{¶68} “Q. And are these then five convictions for driving under the influence of 

alcohol against the Defendant? 

{¶69} “A. I see 4511.19(A) on this one so - - 

{¶70} “Q. What code section is that to you? 

{¶71} “A. 4511, uh, there’s two, two sections that cover OVI, and one’s municipal 

which is the 333.01(A)(1) which that is, we don’t use that any more, we go under state. 

And the only reason we use the state now as opposed, there’s no difference, except for 

if they go to jail for it, the city has to pay for their jail time if you use the city code and 

we’re poor. So we put it under state code and the state picks up the bill. And this one 

is actually the 333.01(A)(1) so that would also be OVI. This is a 4511.19(A) which is, as 

I stated, OVI, 4511.19(A)(1) and 4511.19(A)(1) also on this one also. 

{¶72} “Q. So all five of those exhibits deal with a conviction for driving under the 

influence of alcohol, either under the village or state statute? 

{¶73} “A. Correct. 

{¶74} “Q. And they’re all against Mr. Marshall, the Defendant in this case. 

{¶75} “A. Yes sir.” 

{¶76} Tr. at 405-407. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 12

{¶77} As set forth above, Captain Nelson testified at trial as two five prior 

certified judgment entries exchanged during discovery. He testified all five were 

convictions against Appellant. Appellant did not object to the testimony. As set forth in 

R.C. 2945.75(B) above, Appellant had the burden of proving the defect in the evidence 

by a preponderance of the evidence. 

{¶78} The second assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶79} Appellant's conviction in the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas 

is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Wise, J. and 

Delaney, J. concur 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 13

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

JEFF L. MARSHALL : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 2012 AP 11 0065 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, Appellant's convictions in 

the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant. 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY