[Cite as State v. Reid, 2014-Ohio-1591.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

CRAIG REID : Case No. 13-CA-68 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Municipal Court, 

 Case No. 12 CRB 02051 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 11, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

TRICIA M. MOORE ANDREW T. SANDERSON 

40 West Main Street 73 North Sixth Street 

Newark, OH 43055 Newark, OH 43055 

 
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-68 2 

Farmer, J. 

{¶1} On May 18, 2012, Newark Police Officer Joseph Phillips was dispatched 

to the scene of an accident. Upon investigation, Officer Phillips determined appellant, 

Craig Reid, was unable to come to a complete stop in time and struck a vehicle being 

operated by Olan Lovelady. Mr. Lovelady underwent surgery for injuries sustained in 

the accident. Thereafter, he suffered a post-operative heart attack and died on June 1, 

2013. 

{¶2} On September 19, 2012, appellant was charged with one count of 

vehicular manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(4). A bench trial commenced on 

May 29, 2013. Appellant was found guilty. By judgment entry filed July 30, 2013, the 

trial court sentenced appellant to thirty days in jail. 

{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignments of error are as follows: 

I 

{¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED HARMFUL ERROR IN PERMITTING 

THE INTRODUCTION OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE INTO THE PROCEEDINGS 

BELOW." 

II 

{¶5} "THE CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS BASED 

ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSATAIN THE SAME." 

III 

{¶6} "THE CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS AGAINST 

THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED." 
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-68 3 

I 

{¶7} Appellant claims the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of 

hearsay evidence. We disagree. 

{¶8} The admission or exclusion of evidence lies in the trial court's sound 

discretion. State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987). In order to find an abuse of that 

discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 

Ohio St.3d 217 (1983). 

{¶9} Evid.R. 801(C) defines "hearsay" as "a statement, other than one made by 

the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth 

of the matter asserted." 

{¶10} Specifically, appellant points to two instances of inadmissible hearsay: 1) 

when Officer Phillips identified the victim of the accident as Olan Lovelady, and 2) when 

the coroner relied on Officer Phillips's report to formulate the cause of death. 

{¶11} Officer Phillips testified when he arrived at the scene, paramedics were 

removing the driver of a gold Buick from the vehicle and administering medical aid. T. 

at 9-11. Appellant's statement to Officer Phillips at the scene confirmed that as a result 

of being cut off by another vehicle, he struck the gold Buick. T. at 8-9. Officer Phillips 

obtained the driver's license of the victim and identified the victim as Olan Lovelady. T. 

at 7. Officer Phillips reviewed photographs admitted into evidence and identified the 

accident scene, including the victim's vehicle. T. at 10-11. Officer Phillips testified there 

was only one person in the gold Buick, Mr. Lovelady. T. at 13. Officer Phillips also 
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-68 4 

testified he had brief contact with Mr. Lovelady before he was transported to a hospital 

in Columbus. T. at 17. 

{¶12} Based upon the testimony of Officer Phillips, we find his determination that 

the victim in the gold Buick was Mr. Lovelady does not constitute hearsay. 

{¶13} The coroner, Dr. Jan Gorniak, concluded Mr. Lovelady was in a car 

accident and died as a "result of complications of blunt impact to the trunk and 

extremities due to motor vehicle collision truck vs. car driver and was accidental in 

nature." T. at 27. 

{¶14} Under Evid.R. 803(9), an exception to the hearsay rule, an official death 

certificate and corner's opinion in a report are admissible: 

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though 

the declarant is available as a witness: 

(9) Records of vital statistics. Records or data compilations, in 

any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof 

was made to a public office pursuant to requirement of law. 

{¶15} The central issue is whether the coroner's conclusions were based upon 

the "hearsay testimony" of Officer Phillips wherein he identified the victim as Mr. 

Lovelady, the deceased in the coroner's report. 

{¶16} We have found Officer Phillips's identification of Mr. Lovelady did not 

constitute hearsay, but was in fact a compilation of direct evidence that he personally 
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-68 5 

observed. Upon review, we conclude the coroner's opinion and report were not based 

upon hearsay. 

{¶17} Assignment of Error I is denied. 

II, III 

{¶18} Appellant claims his conviction for vehicular manslaughter was against the 

sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, appellant claims there 

was no causal connection between the accident on May 18, 2013 and Mr. Lovelady's 

death on June 1, 2013, or any proof that Mr. Lovelady was the victim. We disagree. 

{¶19} 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, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991). "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, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). 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, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). 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. 
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-68 6 

{¶20} Appellant was convicted of vehicular manslaughter (with the underlying 

misdemeanor offense being assured clear distance ahead) in violation of R.C. 

2903.06(A)(4) which states the following: 

(A) No person, while operating or participating in the operation of a 

motor vehicle, motorcycle, snowmobile, locomotive, watercraft, or aircraft, 

shall cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's 

pregnancy in any of the following ways: 

(4) As 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, regardless of the 

penalty set by ordinance for the violation, is substantially equivalent to any 

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

a minor misdemeanor. 

{¶21} Appellant argues there was no evidence to support the finding that Mr. 

Lovelady was the driver of the gold Buick. Based upon the testimony of Officer Phillips 

as discussed above, we find there was sufficient, credible, direct evidence to find Mr. 

Lovelady was the driver/victim of the gold Buick. 

{¶22} Appellant also challenges the coroner's opinion of the cause of Mr. 

Lovelady's death (T. at 27): 
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-68 7 

The Newark Fire Department responded and transported him to 

Licking Memorial Hospital, Newark, Ohio. Examination revealed thoracic 

spine fracture and a right ulna fracture. Mr. Lovelady was immediately 

transferred by Critical Life Care to Grant Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio 

for further care. The Coroner's Office was notified and Trax Transport was 

dispatched this man was then transported to the Coroner's Office where 

an autopsy was performed. The death in this case with the end result of 

complications of blunt impact to the trunk and extremities due to motor 

vehicle collision truck vs. car driver and was accidental in nature. 

{¶23} Dr. Gorniak explained further (T. at 28): 

Mr. Lovelady had thoracic spine fractures when he underwent an 

operation to fuse those together and he had a heart attack...post 

operative heart attack, so after he had that surgery he had a heart attack. 

Therefore without the surgery he couldn't have a post operative heart 

attack and why did he have the surgery, because he had thoracic spine 

fractures and how did he have thoracic spine fractures because he was in 

a car crash. 

{¶24} Although on cross-examination defense counsel persistently challenged 

the causation of death, the trial court accepted the undisputed testimony of the coroner. 
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-68 8 

{¶25} 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, 49 Ohio St.3d 182 (1990). 

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. 

{¶26} Upon review, we find appellant's conviction was based upon sufficient, 

credible evidence, and was not a manifest miscarriage of justice. 

{¶27} Assignments of Error II and III are denied. 

{¶28} The judgment of the Municipal Court of Licking County, Ohio is hereby 

affirmed. 

By Farmer, J. 

Delaney, J. concur and 

Hoffman, P.J. concurs separately. 

 

 

 

SGF/sg 303 
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-68 9 

Hoffman, P.J., concurring

{¶29} I concur in the majority's analysis and disposition of Appellant's three 

assignments of error. I write separately only to note I am not convinced our standard of 

review of Appellant's first assignment of error is abuse of discretion. Sage deals only 

with the admission or exclusion of "relevant" evidence.