[Cite as State v. Wampler,
2012-Ohio-2143.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. 2011-CA-57
ELIZABETH A. WAMPLER :
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Fairfield County
Municipal Court, Case No. TRD 11 02860
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 11, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
ANDREW S. MAKOSKI SCOTT P. WOOD
Lancaster City Prosecutor Dagger, Johnston Miller, Ogilvie & Hampson
Box 1008 144 East Main Street
Lancaster, OH 43130 Box 667
Lancaster, OH 43130
[Cite as State v. Wampler, 2012-Ohio-2143.]
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant Elizabeth A. Wampler appeals a judgment of the Municipal
Court of Fairfield County, Ohio, which convicted her of leaving the scene of an
accident. Appellant assigns a single error to the trial court:
{¶2} “THE TRIAL COURT ‘S FINDING OF GUILTY WAS NOT SUPPORTED
BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.”
{¶3} This matter was tried to the bench. Steven Lee testified as he was leaving
the Best Buy Store, he heard a noise and saw a white pickup truck pulling out of the
space next to his vehicle in the parking lot. Someone rolled down the window on the
passenger side of the white pickup truck and pushed the mirror out. He testified when
he reached his car he found scuff marks from the front of the windshield, on the paint,
down across the back of the mirror, and on part of the car. The mirror was shoved in.
Lee copied down the license plate number. He testified the vehicle was not damaged
before he entered the store.
{¶4} At the time Lee heard the noise, he was approximately five to seven car
lengths away from his vehicle. Lee admitted he could not see the actual impact and
could not see the mirrors from his vantage point.
{¶5} Appellant testified on the day in question she borrowed her father’s vehicle.
She was driving and her sister-in-law was in the passenger seat. When she drove his
truck she always parked in the back and away from everyone because the vehicle was
longer than what she was used to. Appellant testified there were no vehicles parked
near her, because she deliberately parked away from the other vehicles. She parked
in two spaces because she didn’t want any accidents happening while she was driving
Fairfield County, Case No. 2011-CA-57 3
the vehicle. The vehicle in question was a full-sized Chevy pickup with a long bed and
standard cab.
{¶6} Appellant testified she and her sister-in-law were in Best Buy for perhaps
ten minutes, and when they came back out there were no vehicles really close to the
truck. The closest vehicle was a spot and a half away at least, and no one was parked
right up next to her. Appellant testified as she was driving away, she saw her mirror
was completely pushed in. She guessed a teenager probably walked by and pushed it
in, so she had her sister-in-law roll down the window and push it back out. They drove
home, where she inspected the vehicle and found no damage to it.
{¶7} Appellant testified she could not recall hearing any loud noises and
although she was talking to her sister-in-law, the radio wasn’t on. Appellant testified
she never heard any noises out of the ordinary in the parking lot, and there were
probably people getting in and out of their cars, slamming doors.
{¶8} Knowledge of the accident is an essential element of the offense of leaving
the scene of an accident. R.C. 4549.021.
{¶9} In State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380,
678 N.E. 2d 541 (1997), the
Supreme Court of Ohio explained “sufficiency of the evidence” is a term of art referring
to the legal standard courts apply to determine whether the evidence is legally
sufficient as a matter of law to go to a jury and to support the jury verdict. Sufficiency
tests the adequacy of the evidence, and it is a question of law. State v. Robinson,
162
Ohio St. 486,
124 N.E. 2d 148 (1955). Whether the defendant contests the facts and
evidence is not relevant to the question of the sufficiency of the state’s evidence. State
v. Chaiffetz, 10th Dist. No. 9-98-20,
1999-Ohio-801 at page 21.
Fairfield County, Case No. 2011-CA-57 4
{¶10} We have reviewed the transcript of the trial, and we find the evidence
presented, if believed by the trial court as trier of fact, is legally sufficient to support the
conviction. The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶11} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Municipal Court of Fairfield
County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Farmer, J., and
Edwards, J., concur
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
_________________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
WSG:clw 0423
[Cite as State v. Wampler, 2012-Ohio-2143.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
ELIZABETH A. WAMPLER :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 2011-CA-57
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of
the Municipal Court of Fairfield County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to appellant.
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
_________________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
