[Cite as State v. Coates, 2014-Ohio-3875.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

KNOX COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsALAN M. COATES 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. 14 CA 2 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Mount Vernon 

Municipal Court, Case No. 13 TRD 3430 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 5, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE MICHAEL J. YEMC, JR. 

LAW DIRECTOR YEMC LAW OFFICE 

5 North Gay Street, Suite 222 Post Office Box 468 

Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050 Delaware, Ohio 43015 
Knox County, Case No. 14 CA 2 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Alan Coates appeals his conviction for speeding entered in the 

Mount Vernon Municipal Court following a trial to the court. 

{¶2} Appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶3} At approximately 7:59 a.m. on August 23, 2013, Defendant-Appellant Alan 

M. Coates was traveling on State Route 3 (Columbus Road) in the Village of 

Centerburg, Knox County, Ohio. (T. at 6.) Simultaneously, Knox County Sheriff's Deputy 

J.P. Paul was stationary, just off of State Route 3, running traffic in the Centerburg High 

School school zone. (T. at 6.) According to his testimony, Deputy Paul activated his LTI 

UltraLyte laser device and clocked Defendant-Appellant traveling at 40 mph in a 20 mph 

zone (T. at 11.) 

{¶4} Deputy Paul cited Appellant with a traffic violation in the Village of 

Centerburg for traveling 40 mph in a 20 mph zone under Codified Ordinance of 

Centerburg §333.03(B)(l). 

{¶5} Defendant-Appellant entered a not guilty plea with the Mount Vernon 

Municipal Court. 

{¶6} Following a few continuances, the case went to trial on January 8, 2014. 

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of a 40/20 mph 

speeding violation. 

{¶7} It is from this conviction Appellant now appeals, assigning the following 

errors for review: 
Knox County, Case No. 14 CA 2 3

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶8} “I. TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

GUILTY OF VIOLATING CODIFIED ORDINANCE OF CENTERBURG §333.03(B)(1) 

WHERE THE COURT HAS NOT HEARD EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE 

SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY OF THE LTI ULTRALYTE LASER AND THE COURT DID 

NOT HAVE A PROPER BASIS FOR TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE DEVICE'S 

ACCURACY. 

{¶9} II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEFENDANT-APPELLATE 

(SIC) GUILTY WHEN THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT A COPY OF THE 

OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE ON THE USE OF RADAR DEVICE.” 

I. 

{¶10} In his First Assignment of Error, Appellant claims, and the State concedes, 

the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the accuracy of the LTI UltraLyte Laser. 

We agree. 

{¶11} At the trial in this matter, the trial court took judicial notice of the LTI 

UltraLyte Laser, a laser speed measuring device. In doing so, the trial court cited this 

Court’s decision in State v. Lapso, 5th Dist. Ashland App. No. 2007-COA-045, 2008-

Ohio-4489. 

{¶12} In State v. Lapso, this Court held: 

{¶13} “The taking of judicial notice is governed by Evid.R. 201. Under Evid.R. 

201(B), “[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it 

is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) 

capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy 
Knox County, Case No. 14 CA 2 4

cannot reasonably be questioned.” The scientific reliability of a laser device is the type 

of fact that a trial court may judicially notice. Cincinnati v. Levine, 158 Ohio App.3d 657, 

2004-Ohio-5992, at ¶ 8, citing Columbus v. Dawson (Mar. 14, 2000), 10th Dist. No. 

99AP-589. 

{¶14} “Establishing the reliability of a speed-measuring device can be 

accomplished for future cases by (1) a reported municipal court decision; (2) a reported 

or unreported case from the appellate court; or (3) the previous consideration of expert 

testimony about a specific device where the trial court notes it on the record.” Levine,

supra, at ¶ 10. (Citations omitted.). State v. Kress, Trumbull App. No. 2007-T-0075, 

2008-Ohio-1658 at ¶ 11-12. 

{¶15} In the case before us, the trial court did not take notice of a reported 

municipal decision or cite to any previous consideration of expert testimony regarding 

the LTI UltraLyte Laser. 

{¶16} While the trial court did cite to this Appellate Court’s decision in Lapso, 

such case did not establish the reliability of the LTI UltraLyte Laser. The Lapso case 

dealt only with radar devices which operated on the Doppler principle. (T. at 9). 

{¶17} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in taking judicial 

notice of the LTI UltraLyte Laser device in this case. 

{¶18} Appellant’s First Assignment of Error is sustained. 

II. 

{¶19} Based on our disposition of Appellant’s First Assignment of Error, 

Appellant’s Second Assignment of Error is moot. 
Knox County, Case No. 14 CA 2 5

{¶20} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Mount Vernon Municipal 

Court, Knox County, Ohio, is reversed and this case is remanded for further 

proceedings in accordance with our opinion and the law. 

By: Wise, J. 

Hoffman, P. J., and 

Baldwin, J., concur. 

 

JWW/d 0821 
Knox County, Case No. 14 CA 2 6