Court Opinion

ID: 9890631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 18:08:38.916212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:39.810386
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Edwards, 2023-Ohio-3740.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                  TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                 :    JUDGES:
                                              :    Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                    :    Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                                              :    Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                          :
                                              :
JACQUELINE EDWARDS                            :    Case No. 2023-AP-02-0012
                                              :
        Defendant-Appellant                   :    OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                           Appeal from the New Philadelphia
                                                   Municipal Court, Case No. TRD-
                                                   2201001

JUDGMENT:                                          Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                  October 13, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                             For Defendant-Appellant

CHRIS RICE                                         DAN GUINN
150 East High Avenue                               232 West 3rd Street
New Philadelphia, OH 44663                         Suite 312
                                                   Dover, OH 44622
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023-AP-02-0012                                                2

King, J.

       {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Jacqueline Edwards, appeals her January 18, 2023

conviction for assured clear distance in the New Philadelphia Municipal Court of

Tuscarawas County, Ohio. Plaintiff-Appellee is state of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.

                        FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶ 2} On March 17, 2022, Edwards was cited for assured clear distance causing

a rear-end collision in violation of New Philadelphia Codified Ordinance 333.03(a). A

bench trial before a magistrate was held on September 19, 2022. By decision filed on the

same day, the magistrate found Edwards guilty and imposed a fine of $17.00 plus costs

and assessed two points to her driver's license record. Edwards filed objections. An

objection hearing was held on January 11, 2003. By judgment entry filed January 18,

2023, the trial court approved and adopted the magistrate's decision.

       {¶ 3} Edwards filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:

                                             I

       {¶ 4} "APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR ASSURED CLEAR DISTANCE

AHEAD WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE."

                                             I

       {¶ 5} In her sole assignment of error, Edwards claims her conviction for assured

clear distance was against the sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.

       {¶ 6} 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, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). "The relevant inquiry is whether,

after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023-AP-02-0012                                               3

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable

doubt." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,

99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). "In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy.

Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law." State

v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

       {¶ 7} Edwards was found guilty of assured clear distance which states: "no

person shall drive any motor vehicle in and upon any street or highway at a greater speed

than will permit the person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead."

New Philadelphia Codified Ordinance 333.03(a).

       {¶ 8} During the bench trial, the magistrate heard from the responding officer and

Edwards. New Philadelphia Police Officer Mark Sadolsky testified he was dispatched to

the scene of a traffic accident. When he arrived, he "could see a van appeared to have

rear-ended a black vehicle. Both vehicles were still where the accident took place, still

touching." September 19, 2022 T. at 5. Officer Sadolsky stated both parties had different

stories of what happened, but "[b]ased on the consistency of the stories and the visual

evidence of the vehicles, the way they were positioned, the way they were still touching,

it appeared as though the van had rear-ended the black vehicle just being too close when

the vehicle was trying to turn into his driveway." Id. at 6. A photograph depicted "a black

car being hit in the rear by tan or gray van. The vehicle was contacted on the left driver's

side bumper rear." State's Exhibit A. The photograph was taken during daylight hours.

Edwards was the driver of the van. Id. at 6. Officer Sadolsky cited Edwards because of

the "way the vehicles were positioned and not moved after the accident it appeared as

ACDA, assured clear distance accident. On top of that the statements from both the
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023-AP-02-0012                                              4

defendant and the other party, the defendant's statements kept changing." Id. at 6-7. He

explained Edwards's statements "kept changing on how the accident took place, what led

up to the accident, multiple stories were given to all three officers that were there"

whereas the other driver's story was consistent and consistent with the photograph of the

accident. Id. at 7. Officer Sadolsky agreed it was possible the front driver could have

slammed on his brakes or put his car in reverse and hit Edwards. Id. at 8. At the scene,

Edwards never claimed that the front driver reversed his car into her front end. Id. at 9.

       {¶ 9} Edwards testified the driver of the front vehicle was Matthew Maple, her ex-

mother-in-law's stepson. Id. at 10-11. She stated she drove by Maple's house and

stopped to take a picture to prove to her ex-brother-in-law that his vehicle was not at

Maple's house. Id. at 11. She then drove through a cemetery when she saw a car "speed

past the cemetery and while I was pulling out of the cemetery that car was then behind

me and I was going fast, getting ready to go around the turn and that car come beside

me." Id. She did not know it was Maple until he was beside her giving her the finger. Id.

Maple "got in front of me and slammed on his brakes and I had nowhere to stop, nowhere

to go * * * my only option was to hit him." Id. at 11-12. She then testified when he was

beside her "he's trying to shove me off the road and sees it's not working he speeds up,

gets in front of me and then slams on his brakes and starts to back up." Id. at 12. Edwards

asserted Maple hit her. Id. at 13. She explained if there were three different stories, it

was because three different officers where asking her different questions; but she always

said Maple slammed on his brakes in front of her. Id. at 14. She testified she hit the back

of his vehicle because she had no option as he "slammed into me * * * backed into me":

"He slammed on his brakes, backed in, went up over the crown of my bumper. I had
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023-AP-02-0012                                                   5

nowhere to go." Id. at 15-16. She explained, "I'm not driving thinking somebody's going

to go into reverse right in front of me. There's nowhere to go when someone's doing that."

Id. at 16. She insisted she did not collide with his car, he collided with hers. Id. at 16.

       {¶ 10} After reviewing the evidence and the testimony presented, the magistrate

found Edwards guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the assured clear distance ordinance.

Id. at 17.

       {¶ 11} Edwards filed objections challenging sufficiency.        During the objection

hearing, Edwards argued Officer Sadolsky's use of the word "appeared" in describing the

accident shows "reasonable doubt on how the accident happened." January 11, 2023 T.

at 3. The state argued Officer Sadolsky testified based on the photograph and his training

as an officer "who has been taught how to view crash scenes and determine who is at

fault." Id. at 3-4. Edwards countered she had moved her vehicle before the police arrived

per the dispatcher's request to move out of the roadway; Edwards did not testify at the

magistrate's hearing to moving her vehicle. Id. at 4-5.

       {¶ 12} In its judgment entry approving and adopting the magistrate's decision, the

trial court stated the following:

              The Court has undertaken an independent review of the case file,

       exhibits and hearing transcript in accordance with Traffic Rule 14 and

       Criminal Rule 19 (D)(4)(d).     The Court FINDS that the Magistrate has

       properly determined the factual issues and has appropriately applied the

       law in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023-AP-02-0012                                                      6

               IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate's Decision

       entered on September 19, 2022, is approved and adopted in its entirety, as

       if fully rewritten herein. Fine $17.00 and court costs to be paid by January

       31, 2023. Two points assessed.1

       {¶ 13} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated:

               Ohio case law has consistently held that a person violates the

       assured clear distance ahead statute if "there is evidence that the driver

       collided with an object which (1) was ahead of him in his path of travel, (2)

       was stationary or moving in the same direction as the driver, (3) did not

       suddenly appear in the driver's path, and (4) was reasonably discernible."

Pond v. Leslein, 72 Ohio St.3d 50, 52, 647 N.E.2d 477 (1995), quoting Blair v. Goff-Kirby

Co., 49 Ohio St.2d 5, 7, 358 N.E.2d 634 (1976). (Additional citations omitted.)

       {¶ 14} "Thus, a driver violates the statute as a matter of law if the party invoking

the statute presents uncontroverted evidence establishing all of the elements necessary

to constitute a statutory violation." Pond at 52.

1We note the trial court incorrectly found the magistrate "appropriately applied the law in

denying the Defendant's motion to suppress." This case did not involve a motion to
suppress; the objection was on sufficiency. Neither party raised this error. Because the
trial court referenced the correctly dated magistrate's decision and approved and adopted
it "in its entirety, as if fully rewritten herein," we will treat the error as a scrivener's error.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023-AP-02-0012                                             7

       {¶ 15} It is undisputed that Maple was ahead of Edwards in her path of travel,

Maple was stationary or moving in the same direction as Edwards, Maple did not suddenly

appear in Edwards's path of travel, and Edwards saw Maple's vehicle in front of her before

the collision. Even accepting Edwards's testimony, it would have taken some time,

however brief, for Maple to slam on his brakes, stop in front of Edwards, and put his

vehicle in reverse, belying Edwards's claim she had "nowhere to go * * * my only option

was to hit him." We find the state presented sufficient evidence to support an assured

clear distance violation.

       {¶ 16} After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we

find any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of assured clear

distance were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

       {¶ 17} Upon review, we find sufficient evidence, if believed, to support the guilty

finding for assured clear distance.

       {¶ 18} The sole assignment of error is denied.

       {¶ 19} The judgment of the New Philadelphia Municipal Court of Tuscarawas

County, Ohio is hereby affirmed.

By King, J.

Delaney, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur.