[Cite as State v. Allen, 2013-Ohio-3715.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

JAMES ALLEN : Case No. 2012CA00196 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2012CR963 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 26, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JOHN D. FERRERO JACOB T. WILL 

Prosecuting Attorney 116 Cleveland Avenue, NW 

 Suite 808 

By: KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY Canton, OH 44702 

110 Central Plaza South 

Suite 510 

Canton, OH 44702-1413 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 2 

Farmer, P.J. 

{¶1} On August 6, 2012, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant, 

James Allen, on one count of vehicular assault in violation of R.C. 2903.08 and one 

count of endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22. Said charges arose from an 

incident wherein appellant drove his vehicle off the roadway, striking a house. His 

passengers therein, his wife and two children, sustained injuries. 

{¶2} A jury trial commenced on September 11, 2012. The jury found appellant 

guilty as charged. By judgment entry filed September 24, 2012, the trial court 

sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of five years in prison. 

{¶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 ERRED IN PERMITTING THE PROSECUTOR TO 

USE PRIOR HEARSAY STATEMENTS TO IMPEACH A WITNESS PURSUANT TO 

EVID. R. 613." 

II 

{¶5} "THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS FOR ONE COUNT OF 

VEHICULAR ASSAULT IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2903.08 AND ONE COUNT OF 

ENDANGERING CHILDREN IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2919.22 WERE AGAINST THE 

MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE." 

I 

{¶6} Appellant claims the trial court erred in permitting the state to use prior 

hearsay statements to impeach a witness pursuant to Evid.R. 613. We disagree. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 3 

{¶7} Evid.R. 613 provides the following in pertinent part: 

(B) Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of 

witness. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness 

is admissible if both of the following apply: 

(1) If the statement is offered solely for the purpose of impeaching 

the witness, the witness is afforded a prior opportunity to explain or deny 

the statement and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to 

interrogate the witness on the statement or the interests of justice 

otherwise require; 

(2) The subject matter of the statement is one of the following: 

(a) A fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action 

other than the credibility of a witness; 

(b) A fact that may be shown by extrinsic evidence under Evid.R. 

608(A), 609, 616(A), or 616(B); 

(c) A fact that may be shown by extrinsic evidence under the 

common law of impeachment if not in conflict with the Rules of Evidence. 

{¶8} 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." 

{¶9} The court called to the stand Anna Allen, appellant's wife, pursuant to 

Evid.R. 614(A) which states: "The court may, on its own motion or at the suggestion of a 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 4 

party, call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to cross-examine witnesses thus 

called." Ms. Allen testified to the events leading up to the accident, the accident itself, 

and what occurred at the hospital thereafter. She testified the cause of the accident 

was appellant hitting a bump in the road (T. at 125): 

A. Um-m, we hit a bump, I had a pop in my hand, the pop went in 

the air. It startled me because the back end started to slide almost 

immediately after hitting the bump underneath us. So the pop went up in 

the air, into his face. 

When I looked up, we were going to head towards a vehicle. My 

husband pulled the wheel this way to avoid hitting the car that was this 

way. And then after that, um-m, we just started to - - we continued to 

spiral out of control. I remember looking over at him and he was trying to 

get control of the wheel. 

{¶10} Because of inconsistencies between her trial testimony, her grand jury 

testimony, and prior statements made to hospital staff and police, the state asked Ms. 

Allen about her prior inconsistent statements. Ms. Allen testified she could not recall 

her statements made at the hospital. T. at 131-132. Thereafter, the following exchange 

occurred (T. at 137-138): 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 5 

Q. Ms. Allen, isn't it true, while in the hospital you told the officers 

that James stated he was going to take us all out and he swerved twice 

and that he slammed into the house and the car? 

A. Not to my knowledge. I have been told by my daughter, by the 

officer, by Victims Assistance, and a number of other people what I said, 

but I don't have any recollection of saying those things being that I had 

been up for days and I was under the influence. 

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry? 

THE WITNESS: I had been up for days and I was under the 

influence. I had been up for three days, I was under the influence. Um-m, 

I was panicking, I don't know what I said at the time. I've been told by 

other people these are the things that I said so I'm not denying them, I'm 

just telling you that's not what happened and that's not what I can 

remember saying. 

{¶11} As our brethren from the Second District set forth in State v. Reed, 2nd 

Dist. Montgomery No. 19674, 2003-Ohio-6536, ¶ 30: 

"If the witness admits making the conflicting statement, then there 

is no need for extrinsic evidence. If the witness denies making the 

statement, extrinsic evidence may be admitted, provided the opposing 

party has an opportunity to query the witness about the inconsistency, and 

provided the 'evidence does not relate to a collateral matter[.]***' 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 6 

However, if the witness says he cannot remember the prior statement, 'a 

lack of recollection is treated the same as a denial, and use of extrinsic 

impeachment evidence is then permitted.' " (Citations omitted.) State v. 

Harris (Dec. 21, 1994), Montgomery App. No. 14343, 1994 WL 718227; 

see, also, State v. Taylor (July 26, 1996), Montgomery App. No. 15119, 

1996 WL 417098 ("A prior statement of a witness may be proved by 

extrinsic evidence if the witness denies the statement or claims he cannot 

remember the statement"). 

{¶12} Based upon Ms. Allen's testimony at trial, an issue existed as to her 

credibility. She was afforded the opportunity to explain or deny her statements, and 

defense counsel was afforded the opportunity to interrogate her on her statements. We 

find Evid.R. 613(B)(1) was satisfied. 

{¶13} Following Ms. Allen's testimony, the state called to the stand Debra 

Stewart, the Emergency Room trauma nurse who treated Ms. Allen. Ms. Stewart 

testified while obtaining Ms. Allen's medical history for purposes of diagnosis and 

treatment, Ms. Allen made certain statements to her. T. at 158. Ms. Allen was upset 

and crying, but alert and oriented. T. at 159-161. Ms. Stewart testified to the following 

exchange with Ms. Allen (T. at 162-163): 

A. She kept repeating, He hates me, he hates me. And in trying to 

get her children - - get her to calm down for her children's sake, I asked 

her, you know, what do you mean, you know, because I was trying to find 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 7 

out - - we have to question them as far as, like, how did the accident 

happen, what did you hit, the mechanism of injury because that can 

change the whole outlook on what tests you do and stuff, whether they 

were belted, whether they hit another object or another car. And she just 

kept saying, He hates me, he hates me. I asked her what she means by 

that, and she said her husband hates her, that they were fighting and he 

said he was going to kill them all, he just turned the wheel and lost control 

of the car. 

Q. When she provided that information to you, were you concerned 

at that point? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And why? 

A. Well, because that's a whole 'nother can of worms. And I didn't 

want to get too involved in it. I just went out and the Jackson Police 

officer, I believe he was in the other room with the person who was driving 

the car, and when he came out I just said, I got to tell you what this patient 

said to me. So I explained it to him, and then he went in and talked to the 

patient. 

{¶14} Ms. Allen's testimony at trial was meant to exonerate her husband from 

the injuries caused by the accident. We find the impeachment also qualified under 

Evid.R. 613(B)(2)(b). In addition, Evid.R. 616(A) provides for the use of the bias 

method of impeachment: "Bias, prejudice, interest, or any motive to misrepresent may 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 8 

be shown to impeach the witness either by examination of the witness or by extrinsic 

evidence." 

{¶15} Apart from the use of the impeachment tool, Ms. Allen's statements to Ms. 

Stewart also qualified under the hearsay exceptions of Evid.R. 803(3) (then existing, 

mental, emotional, or physical condition) and (4) (statements for purposes of medical 

diagnosis or treatment). 

{¶16} Assignment of Error I is denied. 

II 

{¶17} Appellant claims his convictions were against the sufficiency and manifest 

weight of the evidence. We disagree. 

{¶18} 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 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 9 

trial "should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs 

heavily against the conviction." Martin at 175. 

{¶19} Appellant was convicted of vehicular assault in violation of R.C. 

2903.08(A)(2)(b) which states: "No person, while operating or participating in the 

operation of a motor vehicle, motorcycle, snowmobile, locomotive, watercraft, or aircraft, 

shall cause serious physical harm to another person or another's unborn in any of the 

following ways:***Recklessly." 

{¶20} Appellant was also convicted of endangering children in violation of R.C. 

2919.22(A) which states the following in pertinent part: 

No person, who is the parent, guardian, custodian, person having 

custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under eighteen 

years of age or a mentally or physically handicapped child under twentyone years of age, shall create a substantial risk to the health or safety of 

the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support. 

{¶21} As set forth in R.C. 2901.22(C): 

A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the 

consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his 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 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 10 

indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk 

that such circumstances are likely to exist. 

{¶22} It is appellant's position that the injuries were the result of a pothole and/or 

animal in the road, not recklessness. 

{¶23} While at the hospital, Jackson Township Police Officer Thomas 

Minarcheck took Ms. Allen's statement wherein she stated, "he stated he was going to 

take us all out, and he swerved twice, and then he slammed into the house and the car." 

T. at 256-266. A witness to the accident, Terre Arnold, testified to the following (T. at 

193-195): 

A. I was coming back and - - to my daughter's house, and I 

witnessed a car that was coming towards me, and he - - well, the car 

jerked like towards the shoulder and then straightened out and then went 

across the double yellow line, went back into its lane, came back acrossed 

and tipped up a little bit. 

I pulled over into - - there's a church parking lot, or a driveway 

acrossed from my daughter's home, and I pulled in that to get out of the 

way because I didn't know if he was going to roll or hit me or what he was 

going to do, the car. So I just stayed there. 

And them, um-m, the vehicle shot acrossed my daughter's 

driveway.*** 

*** 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 11 

So I went over, and as the car crossed the driveway and slammed 

into the house, it slid down the house into her car. And there was big 

bushes there, about six feet tall, and the force took all the bushes out so 

they were smashed between the vehicle that hit the house and my 

daughter's car. 

{¶24} Ms. Allen, who was trapped inside the car, told Ms. Arnold "he did it on 

purpose, he did it on purpose." T. at 198. Ms. Arnold testified she travels the road a lot 

and there were no bumps or anything in the road. T. at 200. 

{¶25} Jackson Township Police Officer Josh Escola wrote out the accident 

report and took measurements at the scene. T. at 219. Officer Escola spoke to 

appellant who told him "something ran in from of him, his car." T. at 220. Officer Escola 

testified there were no skid marks on the road to indicate braking, but "yaw marks." T. 

at 223, 225. He explained what yaw marks were and testified the yaw marks indicated 

appellant cut the wheel "all the way to the right." T. at 224-225. The car never spun 

out, indicating the brakes were not applied. T. at 226. From the first time the car went 

off the road, it traveled 545 feet and 5 inches to its final resting place at the house. T. at 

228. Officer Escola explained the car left the roadway at three different points (T. at 

245): 

A. Yes, ma'am. Two times on the north, one time was the initial 

movement off the road, which was the Q and R mark. R was the initial 

movement off the road, crossed two lanes of travel on the left side of the 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 12 

vehicle, went off the road, both tires, the right tires did not go off the road, 

and then crossing the lanes of travel. And on I and J, these two marks, 

the vehicle went off the road for the final time. 

{¶26} Even after a thorough investigation of the area, there was no indication 

that the brakes had been applied to the car. T. at 240. 

{¶27} We find Ms. Allen's statements were corroborated by the accident 

investigation report and the eyewitness testimony. 

{¶28} Upon review, we find sufficient evidence to establish recklessness, and no 

manifest miscarriage of justice. 

{¶29} Assignment of Error II is denied. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00196 13 

{¶30} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio is 

hereby affirmed. 

By Farmer, P.J. 

Wise, J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur. 

 

 

 

 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. Sheila G. Farmer 

 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. John W. Wise 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. Craig R. Baldwin 

SGF/sg 805 
[Cite as State v. Allen, 2013-Ohio-3715.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

JAMES ALLEN : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 2012CA00196 

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to 

appellant. 

 

 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. Sheila G. Farmer 

 

 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. John W. Wise 

 _______________________________ 

 Hon. Craig R. Baldwin