Court Opinion

ID: 9370437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 17:07:15.279927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.440689
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Shamansky, 2023-Ohio-405.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                              WYANDOT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                              CASE NO. 16-22-05

        v.

SAMUEL H. SHAMANSKY,                                     OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                   Appeal from Upper Sandusky Municipal Court
                           Trial Court No. TRD 2201887

                                     Judgment Affirmed

                          Date of Decision: February 13, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Samuel H. Shamansky, Appellant

        Benjamin C. Buckland for Appellee
Case No. 16-22-05

MILLER, P.J.

       {¶1} This appeal, having been placed on the accelerated calendar, is sua

sponte being assigned and considered on the regular calendar pursuant to Loc.R.

12(1). Under the authority of Loc.R. 12(5), we have elected to issue a full opinion

in lieu of a judgment entry.

       {¶2} Defendant-appellant, Samuel H. Shamansky, appeals the June 28, 2022

judgment of sentence of the Upper Sandusky Municipal Court. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

       {¶3} On May 26, 2022, Trooper Brett Hannum of the Ohio State Highway

Patrol cited Shamansky under R.C. 4511.21(D)(3) for speeding in a 65-m.p.h. zone.

Trooper Hannum visually estimated Shamansky’s speed at approximately 80 m.p.h.

Trooper Hannum’s BEE III speed-measuring device clocked Shamansky’s speed at

80 m.p.h. Shamansky pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial before the

court. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found Shamansky guilty, ordered

him to pay a $75 fine, and assessed two points to Shamansky’s driver’s license.

Shamansky then timely filed a notice of appeal, raising the following three

assignments of error for review:

       1. Appellant was convicted in the absence of evidence sufficient
       to support a finding of guilty in violation of his right to due
       process as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
       to the United States Constitution and comparable provisions of
       the Ohio Constitution.

                                         -2-
Case No. 16-22-05

       2. Appellant’s conviction was against the manifest weight of the
       evidence in violation of his right to due process as guaranteed by
       the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
       Constitution and comparable provisions of the Ohio Constitution.

       3. The trial court’s failure to strike Trooper Hannum’s
       testimony or dismiss the case constituted plain error in violation
       of Appellant’s rights as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of
       the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and
       comparable provisions of the Ohio Constitution.

A. Shamansky’s conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not
against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶4} Manifest “weight of the evidence and sufficiency of the evidence are

clearly different legal concepts.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 389

(1997). Accordingly, we address each legal concept individually.

       {¶5} “An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the

evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at

trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average

mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio

St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional

amendment on other grounds, State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997).

Consequently, “[t]he 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.” Id.

                                        -3-
Case No. 16-22-05

       {¶6} On the other hand, in determining whether a conviction is against the

manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must 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 [trier

of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that

the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’” Thompkins at 387,

quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). A reviewing

court must, however, allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on matters relating

to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. State v. DeHass,

10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967).

       {¶7} Shamansky first argues that his conviction is not supported by sufficient

evidence because (1) the State did not establish that the scientific principles

underlying Trooper Hannum’s BEE III unit are reliable and (2) the State did not

establish that Trooper Hannum was qualified to use his BEE III unit or that his

specific BEE III unit was accurate. To give context to Shamansky’s argument, we

note that the Supreme Court of Ohio has recently instructed:

       The results of a speed-measuring device using either radar or laser
       technology are admissible in court without expert testimony
       establishing, or the court taking judicial notice of, the reliability of the
       scientific principles of that technology. However, the fact-finder is
       required to determine whether the evidence presented concerning the
       accuracy of the particular speed-measuring device and the
       qualifications of the person who used it is sufficient to support a
       conviction based on the device’s results.

                                           -4-
Case No. 16-22-05

Brook Park v. Rodojev, 161 Ohio St.3d 58, 2020-Ohio-3253, syllabus.

        {¶8} To begin, Shamansky maintains that the State never established that a

BEE III unit utilizes either radar or laser technology, with Trooper Hannum only

“colloquially referr[ing] to the device as ‘[his] radar.’” (Appellant’s Brief at 10).

However, it is clear from the entirety of Trooper Hannum’s testimony that the BEE

III uses radar technology to measure speed. At various times, Trooper Hannum

referred to the BEE III’s “radar lobes.” (June 28, 2022 Tr. at 8, 11, 17-18).

Furthermore, when reading from the purported BEE III operator’s manual on cross-

examination,1 Trooper Hannum indicated that the manual describes the BEE III as

a “[m]oving radar unit[]” or a “radar.” (June 28, 2022 Tr. at 26-27). Accordingly,

we are satisfied that the BEE III uses radar technology and that the results of Trooper

Hannum’s BEE III unit were therefore admissible without expert testimony or

judicial notice regarding the reliability of the scientific principles underlying its

technology.

        {¶9} As for Shamansky’s argument that Trooper Hannum was not qualified

to use his BEE III unit, this claim is clearly belied by the record. Trooper Hannum

testified that he had received 40 hours of training in the use of speed-measuring

1
 The manual itself was not made part of the record, but the State did not challenge the authenticity of the
document Shamansky provided to Trooper Hannum or object to Trooper Hannum reading it into the record.
Therefore, we proceed under the assumption that Trooper Hannum’s testimony accurately reflects the
contents of the BEE III manual.

                                                   -5-
Case No. 16-22-05

devices at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy. (June 28, 2022 Tr. at 21). He

stated that the course “consist[ed] of how to properly install [a] radar unit into [a]

patrol car; * * * how to properly use it; * * * confidence checks; and then also * *

* a practical exercise where you have to go out and visually estimate speeds.” (June

28, 2022 Tr. at 21). Trooper Hannum testified that he successfully completed the

training in 2011 or 2012, that he had been recertified on the use of speed-measuring

devices in April 2021, and that his recertification remained valid. (June 28, 2022

Tr. at 22). A copy of Trooper Hannum’s certification was admitted as Exhibit A.

In addition, Trooper Hannum testified that he had been using a BEE III unit since

2015 and that the BEE III unit he was using on May 26, 2022, had been in his patrol

vehicle for just over a year. (June 28, 2022 Tr. at 19, 23). He stated that he uses his

BEE III unit for “anywhere between 5 to 15 traffic stops” per road patrol shift and

that he averages 8-10 days of road patrol per month. (June 28, 2022 Tr. at 20).

Consequently, Trooper Hannum was doubtlessly qualified to operate his BEE III

unit.

        {¶10} Finally, Shamansky maintains that the State did not demonstrate that

Trooper Hannum’s particular BEE III unit was accurate because “the State failed to

present sufficient evidence that Trooper Hannum’s confidence check was conducted

properly or that he operated the device in a manner consistent with the

manufacturer’s manual.” (Appellant’s Brief at 10-11). Trooper Hannum testified

                                         -6-
Case No. 16-22-05

that he performed a confidence check on his BEE III unit at the beginning of his

shift on May 26, 2022. (June 28, 2022 Tr. at 14). Trooper Hannum outlined the

entire procedure and stated that he performed the confidence check in the manner

that he was trained. (June 28, 2022 Tr. at 14-19, 23-26). However, when Trooper

Hannum read from the purported BEE III manual during cross-examination, it

became apparent that one step of the confidence-check procedure involving tuning

forks, although conducted in conformity with Trooper Hannum’s training, was not

conducted as directed by the manual. (June 28, 2022 Tr. at 27-29). Even so,

Trooper Hannum testified that the confidence check he performed indicated that his

BEE III unit was in proper working order. (June 28, 2022 Tr. at 20). Here, when

viewed in a light most favorable to the State, Trooper Hannum’s testimony about

the confidence-check procedure he employed and his statement that he found his

BEE III unit to be in good working order are sufficient evidence of the device’s

accuracy. See State v. Pavetic, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 21 MA 0076, 2021-Ohio-

4637, ¶ 16-18. The apparent deviation from the manual’s instructions goes not to

the sufficiency of the evidence but “to whether or not [the] results should be

trusted.”   Id. at ¶ 24.   Thus, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports

Shamansky’s conviction for speeding.         However, the variance between the

procedure outlined in the purported BEE III manual and the procedure actually used

                                       -7-
Case No. 16-22-05

is relevant to Shamansky’s manifest-weight-of-the-evidence argument, to which we

now turn. See id. at ¶ 24-25.

       {¶11} Certainly, the discrepancy between the confidence-check procedure

indicated by the manual and the procedure actually performed introduces some

question whether the BEE III’s results should be trusted and, therefore, whether

Shamansky’s conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. However,

doubts about whether Trooper Hannum’s BEE III unit accurately measured

Shamansky’s speed are erased by Trooper Hannum’s testimony that his visual

estimation of Shamansky’s speed was consistent with his BEE III’s measurement.

(See June 28, 2022 Tr. at 8-12). Here, we note that although “‘[a] driver cannot be

convicted of speeding based solely upon a peace officer’s unaided visual estimation

of the speed of a motor vehicle, * * * testimony related to an officer’s visual

estimation can be offered in support of a speeding charge.’” State v. White, 9th Dist.

Wayne No. 20AP0037, 2021-Ohio-4046, ¶ 6, quoting State v. Upchurch, 9th Dist.

Medina No. 20CA0001-M, 2021-Ohio-94, ¶ 12. Accordingly, if Trooper Hannum

was properly qualified to visually estimate the speed of a moving vehicle and he

was deemed to be credible, Trooper Hannum’s testimony could appropriately be

used to bolster the results of the confidence-check procedure, thereby contributing

to a finding that his BEE III unit was reliable and that it accurately measured

Shamansky’s speed.

                                         -8-
Case No. 16-22-05

       {¶12} As suggested above, Trooper Hannum was clearly qualified by his

training and experience to visually estimate the speed of a moving vehicle. The

only remaining issue is his credibility. “Although we review credibility when

considering the manifest weight of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses is

primarily a determination for the trier of fact.” State v. Banks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 96535, 2011-Ohio-5671, ¶ 13. “The trier of fact is best able ‘to view the

witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures[,] and voice inflections, and use

these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.’” Id.,

quoting State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, ¶ 24.

Notwithstanding Shamansky’s arguments to the contrary, we find nothing in

Trooper Hannum’s testimony or in the background of this case that persuades us

that the trial court erred by crediting Trooper Hannum’s testimony. Consequently,

giving credence to Trooper Hannum’s visual estimation of Shamansky’s speed,

Trooper Hannum’s testimony lends support to a finding that his BEE III unit was

reliable and accurate at the time in question. Similarly, we have no basis for

rejecting Trooper Hannum’s testimony that the readout on his BEE III unit indicated

that Shamansky was traveling 80 m.p.h. (See June 28, 2022 Tr. at 11). Thus, we

conclude that Shamansky’s conviction for speeding is not against the manifest

weight of the evidence.

       {¶13} Shamansky’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.

                                        -9-
Case No. 16-22-05

B. The record does not support that Shamansky was denied his rights to due
process.

       {¶14} Lastly, we consider Shamansky’s argument that his due-process rights

were violated when the State failed to preserve material, potentially exculpatory

evidence. Specifically, Shamansky contends that Trooper Hannum unreasonably

and without justification refused (1) to allow him to personally view the readout on

Trooper Hannum’s BEE III unit; (2) to take a photograph of the readout with

Trooper Hannum’s cell phone; and (3) to take a photograph of the readout with his

own personal cell phone. He maintains that Trooper Hannum thus “utterly failed to

preserve this vital evidence” and that it “was the State’s burden at trial to

demonstrate that the BEE III readout was not materially exculpatory.” (Appellant’s

Brief at 14). However, from the record, it appears that the BEE III readout

registering Shamansky’s speed was not even available for preservation at the time

of Shamansky’s requests. Trooper Hannum explained that as Shamansky’s vehicle

passed by, “the 80 miles per hour * * * went away, and then the counting unit then

calculated the next vehicle.” (June 28, 2022 Tr. at 11). Moreover, there is no

indication in the record that Shamansky’s speed was “locked in” the display of the

BEE III unit in any way that it could have been shown to Shamansky or

photographed. Further, Trooper Hannum testified he was unaware whether the

measurement of Shamansky’s speed was logged in such a way that it could be

retrieved from the unit at a later time. Therefore, lacking any concrete showing that

                                        -10-
Case No. 16-22-05

the evidence identified by Shamansky was even available for preservation, we

cannot conclude that Shamansky’s due-process rights were violated.

       {¶15} Shamansky’s third assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Upper Sandusky

Municipal Court.

                                                             Judgment Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/jlr

                                      -11-