[Cite as State v. Hessler, 2020-Ohio-2859.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

SANDUSKY COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. S-19-029 

 

 Appellee Trial Court Nos. 19TRD69A 

 19TRD69B 

v. 

 Martha W. Hessler DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: May 8, 2020 

* * * * * 

 Beth A. Tischler, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, 

 for appellee. 

 Angela M. Lavin and Aaron A. Hessler, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

PIETRYKOWSKI, J. 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Martha W. Hessler, appeals the July 24, 2019 

judgment of the Sandusky County Court which, following a bench trial finding her guilty 

of failing to yield at a stop sign and distracted driving, ordered her to pay fines totaling 

$300. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the convictions but modify the fine. 
2.

{¶ 2} On January 7, 2019, in Washington Township, Sandusky County, Ohio, 

appellant was issued a traffic citation for failing to stop/yield at a stop sign and for the 

secondary offense of distracted driving. Appellant contested the charges and the matter 

was set for trial. 

{¶ 3} The matter proceeded to a bench trial on May 8, 2019. The state presented 

the testimony of Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper, Donte Hanns. Trooper Hanns 

stated that on January 7, 2019, under light rain conditions, he was stopped in his patrol 

vehicle in the median or “suicide lane” on U.S. 20 near the intersection of S.R. 600 and 

was monitoring eastbound traffic. Trooper Hanns’ dashboard camera recorded the 

incident; Hanns narrated the viewing of the video during his testimony. Trooper Hanns 

stated that he observed multiple vehicles on S.R. 600 at the stop sign at the intersection. 

The first two vehicles stopped and then proceeded through crossing U.S. 20. After 

stopping, a pickup truck turned left onto U.S. 20. Trooper Hanns stated that appellant 

then “piggybacked” off of the pickup truck also turning left onto U.S. 20. Hanns 

explained that appellant failed to make a complete stop before turning. He stated that 

from where appellant last stopped she could not have seen oncoming, eastbound traffic 

on U.S. 20 due to a house near the corner. 

{¶ 4} Trooper Hanns testified that he then followed and stopped appellant. When 

asked, appellant stated that she was distracted by the GPS on her cell phone. Appellant 

did not admit to failing to stop; she indicated that she believed that she did stop. Trooper 
3.

Hanns testified that he had no doubt that appellant failed to yield at the stop sign and that 

he issued a citation for the infraction as well as for distracted driving. 

{¶ 5} During cross-examination, Trooper Hanns testified that at the intersection 

there is a white stop line as well as a stop sign. Hanns admitted that he did not know 

where the pickup truck stopped in relation to the white line or where appellant’s vehicle 

was positioned in relation to the white line. He also admitted that he could not see the 

stop sign from his position. 

{¶ 6} Defense counsel then introduced a photograph of the intersection in 

question. It depicted the location of the white line which was even with a telephone pole. 

Comparing the photograph to the video, Trooper Hanns stated that appellant’s only stop 

near the intersection was behind the pickup truck and that the truck’s front tires were 

positioned in line with the telephone pole. Hanns agreed that this placed appellant’s 

vehicle at least one full car length behind the white line. This was the last point she was 

stopped before her entry into the intersection. 

{¶ 7} The court then determined that based on its review of the statute, the video, 

and the photograph it was clear that appellant failed to stop at the stop sign before turning 

onto U.S. 20. The court noted that common sense applied in that based on the dangerous 

nature of the intersection (which the judge stated she was very familiar with), many 

people stop and pull up and stop again prior to proceeding. The court further found that 

appellant admitted to being distracted while driving. The court then ordered appellant to 
4.

pay $150 fine plus court costs as to each violation. This appeal followed with appellant 

raising three assignments of error for our review: 

First Assignment of Error: The trial court erred in convicting

appellant, Martha W. Hessler, of violating R.C. 4511.43(A) when the 

manifest weight of the evidence shows that appellant did stop at the stop 

sign and that state failed to introduce the evidence necessary to convict 

appellant of violating R.C. 4511.43(A). 

Second Assignment of Error: The trial court erred in convicting 

appellant, Martha W. Hessler of violating R.C. 4511.43(A) when the trial 

judge relied on her personal knowledge of the facts that were in dispute in 

the trial. 

Third Assignment of Error: The trial court erred in sentencing

appellant, Martha W. Hessler to a $150 fine for violating R.C. 4511.991 

when the maximum fine permitted under the statute is $100. 

{¶ 8} Appellant’s first assignment of error is that appellant’s conviction for failing 

to yield at a stop sign was against the manifest weight of the evidence. When considering 

whether a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence in a bench trial, an 

appellate court will not reverse a conviction where the trial court could reasonably 

conclude from substantial evidence that the state has proved the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt. State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56, 59, 526 N.E.2d 304 (1988). The 

court reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, 
5.

considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether, in resolving conflicts in 

the evidence, the court “‘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. 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 

Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). The discretionary power to grant 

a new trial should be exercised only in exceptional cases where the evidence weighs 

heavily against the conviction. Id.

{¶ 9} The statute in dispute, R.C. 4511.43(A), provides: 

Except when directed to proceed by a law enforcement officer, every 

driver of a vehicle or trackless trolley approaching a stop sign shall stop at a 

clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the 

near side of the intersection, or, if none, then at the point nearest the 

intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on 

the intersecting roadway before entering it. After having stopped, the 

driver shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or 

approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate 

hazard during the time the driver is moving across or within the intersection 

or junction of roadways. 

{¶ 10} Appellant contends that this court should hold that a motorist has not 

violated R.C. 4511.43(A) where the motorist stops behind a vehicle stopped beyond the 

white line and then proceeds through the intersection without stopping a second time. 
6.

Supporting this argument, appellant relies on a case finding in favor of the motorist 

where the state failed to present any evidence as to where the appellant stopped in 

relation to the stop sign. State v. Abele, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 04CA7, 2005-Ohio-2378. 

In Abele, the citing officer admitted that appellant came to a stop behind another vehicle 

that was stopped beyond the stop line. Id. at ¶ 11. The court concluded that the 

admission that appellant came to a complete stop combined with the failure to show 

where appellant stopped in relation to the white line was insufficient to prove a violation 

of R.C. 4511.43. Id.

{¶ 11} In the present case, unlike Abele, testimony and evidence was presented to 

show that the pickup truck directly in front of appellant stopped at the white line and that 

appellant’s last stop was, at minimum, a pickup truck’s length back from that line. See 

State v. Hudson, 4th Dist. Gallia App. No. 17CA19, 2018-Ohio-2717, ¶ 25, 

distinguishing Abele. Accordingly, we find that the court did not lose its way or create a 

manifest injustice by finding that appellant violated R.C. 4511.43(A).1

 Appellant’s first 

assignment of error is not well-taken. 

 

1

 Although not raised as an assignment of error, we reject appellant’s assertion that the 

use of her GPS could not form the basis of a distracted driving charge because it is 

excluded under R.C. 4511.991(1)(a)(iii). The subsection provides an exception to 

distracted driving for use of “[a] ‘voice-operated or hands-free’ device that allows the 

person to use the electronic wireless communications device without the use of either 

hand except to activate, deactivate, or initiate a feature or function[.]” First, at trial there 

was no evidence presented as to how appellant’s cell phone, mounted to her steering 

column, was being used. Regardless, R.C. 4511.991(1)(b) also defines distracted driving 

as “[e]ngaging in any activity that is not necessary to the operation of a vehicle and 

impairs, or reasonably would be expected to impair, the ability of the operator to drive 
7.

{¶ 12} In her second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial judge erred 

by relying on her “personal knowledge” of the facts that were in dispute. Appellant also 

contends that the court offered “opinion testimony” in contravention of Evid.R. 605. We 

disagree. 

{¶ 13} First, the court did not offer testimony as asserted by appellant; the 

comments regarding the intersection were made while the court was rendering its verdict. 

Further, the comments made were not as to any facts that were in dispute. Whether the 

intersection was historically “dangerous” was not an issue for trial nor was the question 

of whether appellant stopped a second time before turning onto U.S. 20. Reviewing the 

trial transcript, it is clear that the court based its decision on the evidence properly before 

it. The court specifically concluded that comparing the video and photograph it was clear 

that appellant did not stop at the white line and proceeded almost “simultaneously” 

behind the pickup truck into the intersection. Finally, it is not surprising that the court 

had knowledge of a busy intersection in its jurisdiction. Appellant’s second assignment 

of error is not well-taken. 

{¶ 14} In appellant’s third and final assignment of error she argues that the trial 

court erred by imposing a $150 fine for the distracted driving violation where the 

 

the vehicle safely.” Appellant’s admission to being distracted by her GPS combined with 

the officer’s observation of the stop sign violation was sufficient to support the charge. 

 
8.

maximum fine is $100. See R.C. 4511.991(B). The state concedes the error. 

Accordingly, appellant’s third assignment of error is well-taken. 

{¶ 15} On consideration whereof, we find that the Sandusky County Court’s 

judgment convicting appellant of failure to stop/yield at a stop sign and distracted driving 

is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 12(1)(a), we modify appellant’s sentence to reduce the 

$150 distracted driving fine to $100. Pursuant to App.R. 24, the parties are ordered to 

equally share the costs of this appeal. 

Judgment affirmed 

and modified. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Arlene Singer, J. 

_______________________________ 

Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.