[Cite as State v. Belser, 2013-Ohio-1284.] 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Appellant Discharged 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 22, 2013 

John P. Curp, City Solicitor, Charles Rubenstein, City Prosecutor, and Jacqueline 

Pham, Assistant City Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Brown, Lippert & Laite and James R. Garvin, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 vs. 

REGINALD BELSER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-120390 

TRIAL NO. 12TRD-7365 

 

 O P I N I O N.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

DEWINE, Judge. 

{¶1} This case presents the question of whether a defendant may be convicted 

of operating of a motor vehicle with an invalid license plate under R.C. 4549.08 based 

purely on a theory of strict liability without the establishment of culpability. We 

conclude that the offense in question is not a strict liability offense and that the state 

must establish the defendant acted recklessly. Because it did not do so in this case, we 

reverse defendant-appellant Reginald Belser’s conviction. 

{¶2} Mr. Belser was convicted of violating R.C. 4549.08 following a bench 

trial. The facts as adduced at trial are straightforward. A van driven by Mr. Belser was 

involved in an accident with another vehicle. A Cincinnati police officer responded to 

the accident and discovered that the license plate number on the validation sticker did 

not match the number on the van’s license plate. When questioned by the officer, Mr. 

Belser stated that he was in the process of buying the vehicle and needed to transfer the 

title to his name. The officer testified that he did not know to whom the license plate or 

validation sticker were registered; that Mr. Belser’s name did not come back as the 

owner of the van; and that to his knowledge, Mr. Belser did not know that the validation 

sticker did not match the license plate. The officer cited Mr. Belser for driving a motor 

vehicle with an invalid license plate or identification mark in violation of R.C. 4549.08, 

and noted on the back of the ticket: “Invalid sticker on license plate that belonged to 

another vehicle, not owner of vehicle, in process of buying it.” 

{¶3} At the conclusion of the officer’s testimony, Mr. Belser moved to dismiss 

the charge on the basis that the state had failed to prove he had acted recklessly. The 

trial court overruled the motion. 

{¶4} Mr. Belser then testified that he had gone to the owner’s home to look 

at a van he was interested in purchasing. After speaking with the owner, he learned that 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

the van needed some mechanical work and decided to take it for a test drive. During the 

test drive, another motorist pulled out and hit the van. Mr. Belser further testified that 

he had not paid for the van and it was not titled in his name. The trial court found Mr. 

Belser guilty and ordered him to pay a $100 fine and court costs. 

{¶5} In a single assignment of error, Mr. Belser argues that the trial court 

erred in convicting him of a violation of R.C. 4549.08 when the state had failed to prove 

an element of the offense—that he had acted recklessly. We agree. 

{¶6} R.C. 4549.08 provides in pertinent part: 

(A) No person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle upon the 

public roads and highways in this state if it displays a license plate 

or a distinctive number or identification mark that meets any of 

the following criteria: 

(1) Is fictitious; 

(2) Is a counterfeit or an unlawfully made copy of any 

distinctive number or identification mark; 

(3) Belongs to another motor vehicle * * *. 

{¶7} R.C. 4549.08 does not specify a culpable mental state. R.C. 2901.21(B) 

provides that 

[w]hen the section defining an offense does not specify any degree 

of culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict 

liability for the conduct described in the section, then culpability is 

not required for a person to be guilty of the offense. When the 

section neither specifies culpability nor plainly indicates a purpose 

to impose strict liability, recklessness is sufficient culpability to 

commit the offense. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

{¶8} In overruling Mr. Belser’s Crim.R. 29 motion, the trial court relied upon 

the phrase “[n]o person shall” at the beginning of R.C. 4549.08 as being indicative of the 

legislature’s intent to impose strict liability. The Ohio Supreme Court, however, has 

expressly stated that “the fact that [a] statute contains the phrase ‘[n]o person shall’ does 

not mean that it is a strict criminal liability offense.” State v. Moody, 104 Ohio St.3d 

244, 2004-Ohio-6395, 819 N.E.2d 268, ¶ 16. Rather, the issue is whether the statute 

plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict liability. R.C. 2901.21(B). 

{¶9} There is nothing in the plain language of R.C. 4549.08 that indicates a 

purpose to impose strict liability. Indeed, as both the Second and Seventh Appellate 

Districts have pointed out in finding that the statute does not provide for strict liability, 

there are a number of circumstances in which an individual could operate a vehicle 

without any knowledge or any way of knowing if a license plate was legitimate. State v.

Frazier, 7th Dist. No. 01CA65, 2003-Ohio-1216, ¶ 14-19; State v. Combs, 2d Dist. No. 

2006CA 38, 2006-Ohio-7088, ¶ 16; see also State v. Howard, 2d Dist. No. 21899, 2007-

Ohio-6591, ¶ 19. 

{¶10} Because R.C. 4549.08 lacks a culpable mental state and does not clearly 

indicate an intent to impose strict liability, the state was required to prove that Mr. 

Belser acted recklessly. A defendant 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 to be of a certain nature.” R.C. 2901.22. 

{¶11} Here, there was no evidence of recklessness. The state’s only witness 

testified that Mr. Belser was not the owner of the vehicle, the license plates, or the 

validation sticker. The state did not present any testimony that Mr. Belser had any 

knowledge of or any reason to suspect any irregularity with the license plates. Mr. Belser 

testified that he was merely test driving the van to determine if he would purchase it. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

We, therefore, sustain the sole assignment of error, reverse the trial court’s judgment, 

and discharge him from further prosecution. See Dayton v. Ahmad, 2d Dist. No. 24165, 

2011-Ohio-2302, ¶ 44-49; Frazier at ¶ 20-21. 

Judgment reversed and appellant discharged. 

HENDON, P.J., and HILDEBRANDT, J., concur.

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry this date.