[Cite as State v. Perdue,
2016-Ohio-4947.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vsCase No. 2015 CA 00181
TERRY LYNN PERDUE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Canton Municipal
Court, Case No 2015 TRC 3992
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 11, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
KELLY PARKER EARLE E. WISE, JR.
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 122 Central Plaza North
218 Cleveland Avenue S.W. Canton, Ohio 44702
Post Office Box 24218
Canton, Ohio 44701-4218
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Terry Lynn Perdue appeals from the denial of his
motion to suppress evidence and from his subsequent conviction for OVI in the Canton
Municipal Court, Stark County. Appellee is the State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading
to this appeal are as follows:
{¶2} In the early morning hours of June 6, 2015, Officer Mark Brownsword of the
Waynesburg Police Department was in his cruiser observing traffic from a gas station
parking lot at the intersection of Canal Street and North Mill Street. At approximately 1:35
AM, the officer observed a 1990 red Chevrolet pickup truck make a wide right turn at said
intersection. The vehicle’s turn was captured on the police cruiser’s video camera.
According to the officer’s subsequent suppression hearing testimony, the truck crossed
over the double yellow line by a tire width and drove back onto the double yellow line, but
then crept over to the left of the double yellow line again, before returning to its correct
lane of travel. See S.H. Tr. at 6, 15. Officer Brownsword proceeded to effectuate a traffic
stop at that time.
{¶3} Upon approaching the truck, Officer Brownsword noticed empty beer cans
in the bed of the vehicle. In conversing with Appellant Perdue, the driver of the truck, the
officer observed appellant’s glazed eyes, and further noticed that appellant dropped a lit
cigarette onto his lap and struggled to find his driver’s license. The officer also detected
slurred speech and an “overwhelming” smell of alcoholic beverage. When asked to exit
the truck, appellant stumbled out and continued to have difficulty balancing himself.
{¶4} Waynesburg Police Chief William Bath also arrived on the scene to assist.
Appellant was thereupon charged with one count of operating a vehicle under the
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 3
influence of alcohol (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(e)), a first-degree misdemeanor, and one count
of violating lanes of travel (R.C. 4511.25(A)), a minor misdemeanor.
{¶5} Appellant was arraigned on June 8, 2015. At a pretrial on June 12, 2015,
appellant, with the assistance of legal counsel from the Stark County Public Defender's
Office, waived speedy trial time and made a demand for a jury trial. A jury trial was
originally set for August 6, 2015, but was later continued to September 4, 2015.
{¶6} On July 20, 2015, appellant filed a motion to suppress the results of the
traffic stop. A hearing on said motion was set for August 4, 2015, following which the trial
court denied the motion from the bench. The court filed a written judgment entry denying
the motion on the same day.
{¶7} On September 3, 2015, the State filed a motion to amend the OVI charge
from R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(e) (concentration level of eleven-hundredths of one gram or
more but less than two hundred thirty-eight-thousandths of one gram by weight of alcohol
per one hundred milliliters of urine) to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(i) (concentration level of two
hundred thirty-eight-thousandths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per one
hundred milliliters of urine). The court granted the amendment to the OVI charge.
{¶8} The case proceeded to a jury trial on September 4, 2015. During the jury
trial, the judge simultaneously heard the minor misdemeanor lane violation charge.
{¶9} Appellant was ultimately found guilty of both charges. Following a
sentencing hearing on September 8, 2015, the court sentenced appellant to 180 days in
jail, suspending all but 71 days and giving credit for one day served. Appellant was also
fined, given community service, a license suspension, and the assessment of six points
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 4
on his license. A judgment entry of conviction and sentence was issued on September 9,
2015.
{¶10} On October 1, 2015, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises the
following two Assignments of Error:
{¶11} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO [THE] PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT
WHEN IT DENIED HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS
COLLECTED AFTER APPELLANT'S VEHICLE WAS STOPPED WITHOUT PROBABLE
CAUSE IN VIOLATION [OF] HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AND FORTEENTH
[SIC] AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATE [SIC] CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE
ONE OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, PROTECTING AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
{¶12} II. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN THE CONVICTIONS AND THE VERDICTS ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
I.
{¶13} In his First Assignment of Error, appellant challenges the trial court's denial
of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the officer’s traffic stop.
{¶14} There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court's ruling on a
motion to suppress. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's finding of fact.
Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or
correct law to the findings of fact. Finally, an appellant may argue the trial court has
incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issue raised in the motion to suppress. When
reviewing this third type of claim, an appellate court must independently determine,
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 5
without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate
legal standard in the given case. See State v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 1 OBR
57,
437 N.E.2d 583; State v. Williams (1993),
86 Ohio App.3d 37,
619 N.E.2d 1141; State
v. Curry (1994),
95 Ohio App.3d 93, 96,
641 N.E.2d 1172; State v. Claytor (1993),
85
Ohio App.3d 623, 627,
620 N.E.2d 906; State v. Guysinger (1993),
86 Ohio App.3d 592,
621 N.E.2d 726. However, the United States Supreme Court has held that “... as a general
matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed
de novo on appeal.” Ornelas v. U.S. (1996),
517 U.S. 690,
116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663,
134
L.Ed.2d 911.
{¶15} Before a law enforcement officer may stop a vehicle, the officer must have
a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that an occupant is or
has been engaged in criminal activity. State v. Logan, 5th Dist. Richland No. 07–CA–56,
2008–Ohio–2969, ¶ 15, quoting State v. Gedeon (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 617, 618.
Reasonable suspicion constitutes something less than probable cause. State v. Carlson
(1995),
102 Ohio App.3d 585, 590. The propriety of an investigative stop must be viewed
in light of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Bobo (1988),
37 Ohio St.3d 177,
paragraph one of the syllabus. In a situation where the officer has observed a traffic
violation, the stop is constitutionally valid. Dayton v. Erickson (1996),
76 Ohio St.3d 3, 9,
665 N.E.2d 1091. In sum, “ ‘ … if an officer's decision to stop a motorist for a criminal
violation, including a traffic violation, is prompted by a reasonable and articulable
suspicion considering all the circumstances, then the stop is constitutionally valid.’ ” State
v. Adams, 5th Dist. Licking No. 15 CA 6, 2015–Ohio–3786, ¶ 23, quoting State v. Mays,
119 Ohio St.3d 406,
894 N.E.2d 1204, 2008–Ohio–4539, ¶ 8.
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 6
{¶16} We also note that when an officer is confronted in the midst of his or her
duties with a situation requiring the application of an unclear statute, the officer can still
make a valid stop if the officer's mistaken interpretation of the law is reasonable. See
State v. Millerton, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 26209, 2015–Ohio–34, 26 N.E.3d 317, ¶ 16,
citing Heien v. North Carolina, ––– U.S. ––––,
135 S.Ct. 530, 533,
190 L.Ed.2d 475
(2014).
{¶17} Appellant’s main emphasis in the present assigned error is on certain
discrepancies between the officer’s testimony and the video recording of the traffic stop
in question, which was played at the suppression hearing. After viewing the video at the
hearing, Officer Brownsword conceded on cross-examination and re-direct that the
double yellow line is only seen onscreen for a brief time early in the sequence, and thus
the back-and-forth movement of the truck is not fully reflected in the recording. See. Tr.
at 15-17.
{¶18} Although the trial court found that the back-and-forth movement across the
double yellow line is not evident in the video, it nonetheless concluded the video “shows
the [appellant’s] car in a relative point where a violation could occur, and you add that
with the officer’s testimony which I find reasonable enough.” S.H. Tr. at 24. Some of the
discrepancy asserted by appellant was addressed by Officer Brownsword, who testified
that his eye level and angle of sight when in the police cruiser are different from that of
the mounted dash camera. See S.H. Tr. at 17. It has been aptly recognized that
“[b]ecause the trial court acts as the trier of fact in suppression hearings and is in the best
position to resolve factual issues and evaluate the credibility of witnesses, an appellate
court must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent,
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 7
credible evidence.” State v. Shrewsbury, 4th Dist. Ross No. 13CA3402, 2014–Ohio–716,
¶ 11, citing State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152,
797 N.E.2d 71, 2003–Ohio–5372, ¶ 8.
Furthermore, it is well-established that an officer's reasonable articulable suspicion does
not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's conduct has satisfied
the elements of the offense. State v. Willis, 5th Dist. Licking No. 14 CA 103, 2015–Ohio–
3739, ¶ 25, citing Westlake v. Kaplysh, 118 Ohio App .3d 18, 20,
691 N.E.2d 1074 (8th
Dist.1997).
{¶19} Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the trial court's denial of
suppression under the facts and circumstances presented. Appellant's First Assignment
of Error is overruled.
II.
{¶20} In his Second Assignment of Error, appellant argues his OVI conviction is
not supported by sufficient evidence and is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
We disagree.1
{¶21} In reviewing a defendant’s claim of insufficient evidence, “[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.” State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259,
574 N.E.2d 492,
paragraph two of the syllabus. To be admissible under Evid.R. 702, expert testimony must
assist the trier of fact in determining a fact issue or understanding the evidence. Estate of
Thompson v. Club Car, Inc., 5th Dist. Richland No. 2009-CA-0120,
2010-Ohio-2593, ¶
1 Appellant has limited his arguments to the more serious OVI conviction; therefore, we
will not review the marked lanes offense in this context. See App.R. 16(A)(7).
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 8
30, citing Miller v. Bike Athletic Co. (1998),
80 Ohio St.3d 607,
687 N.E.2d 735 (additional
citations omitted).
{¶22} Appellant herein was tried on an amended charge of violating R.C.
4511.19(A)(1)(i), which states as follows: “No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar,
or trackless trolley within this state, if, at the time of the operation … [t]he person has a
concentration of two hundred thirty-eight-thousandths of one gram or more by weight of
alcohol per one hundred milliliters of the person's urine.”
{¶23} There is no dispute in the case sub judice the trial court instructed the jury
that in order to find appellant guilty they were required to find a concentration of two
hundred and thirty-eight thousandths (0.238) or more. Tr. at 196.
{¶24} During the trial, Criminalist Jay Spencer from the Canton-Stark County
Crime Lab, who conducted the analysis of appellant’s urine sample, testified as to the
scientific results. Trial Tr. at 162-163. Spencer, a twenty-nine year employee of the crime
lab, was recognized by the trial court as an expert witness in regard to headspace gas
chromatography testing. Tr. at 155, 160. He testified on direct examination that the urine
sample test result was twenty-four hundredths (0.24). Tr. at 166. He further testified that
the result was expressed along with a margin of error of 0.03, plus or minus. Tr. at 166-
167. The prosecutor continued his questioning as follows:
Q: And with the plus or minus variance there next to [the test result] in the
percentage of probability are you able to say here today in court that you have any
reason to believe that that level in Mr. Perdue's sample is anything other than that
point two four percent?
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 9
A: No I don't believe so. I think it- actually running it twice and getting the correct
answer I believe it is point two four.
Tr. at 169-170.
{¶25} On cross-examination, Spencer was asked additional questions about the
margin of error of ± 0.03. He indicated that this was not a factor for human error but rather
variability that is inherent in the methodology of the technique used to test. Tr. at 175. He
agreed that he could say with scientific certainty that the sample fell within the range of
0.21 to 0.27. Tr. at 176.
{¶26} After the State rested, appellant moved for dismissal under Crim.R. 29,
arguing that there was uncertainty in Spencer’s testimony as to the range of values for
the alcohol level. Tr. at 178. The court denied the motion. Tr. at 179. It was renewed at
the end of the presentation of evidence and was denied again. Tr. at 180-181.
{¶27} Appellant presently urges that since a jury likely has limited knowledge of
areas such as headspace gas chromatography and testing methods for alcohol
concentration in the urine, the testimony of an expert chemist is paramount. Thus,
appellant maintains, where the jury is given expert testimony that supported to a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty a range of 0.21 to 0.27, vis-à-vis a statutory
requirement of 0.238, the jury is essentially left to guess the result, based upon the 0.03
margin of error.
{¶28} Our research reveals several cases that have touched upon the issue raised
by appellant. In State v. Richards, 4th Dist. Athens No. 14CA1, 2015-Ohio-669, ¶ 56, a
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 10
defendant’s “margin of error” argument concerning his urine test was found to be related
“to the credibility and reliability of his test” and was thus an evidentiary issue to be raised
at trial. In State v. King, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-010778,
2003-Ohio-1541, a defendant
argued on appeal that his blood samples were insufficient to establish a violation of R.C.
4511.19(A), given the margin of error associated with the tests for blood-alcohol content.
The First District Court noted: “… [T]he test for sufficiency requires that we give the state
the benefit of all reasonable inferences from its evidence, and so we cannot assume that
these particular test results were affected by error.” Id. at ¶ 12. Moreover, in State v.
Troutman, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010223,
2013-Ohio-4559, a defendant made a
strikingly similar argument to that raised herein, except in the context of the amount of
cocaine seized in a drug possession case. The Ninth District Court concluded: “Mr.
Troutman argues that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence that the bag found
in the trunk of Mr. Troutman's car contained 500 or more grams of cocaine because [crime
lab scientist] Ms. Doyle testified that her scale had a .5 gram margin of error.
Nevertheless, Ms. Doyle testified that the product weighed 500.3 grams and, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the State, her testimony would be sufficient to support
a finding that the cocaine found in Mr. Troutman's trunk weighed at least 500 grams.” Id.
at ¶ 19.
{¶29} In the case sub judice, as the State notes in its response brief, Spencer
testified that appellant’s urine sample, which was tested twice, yielded a result of 0.24,
exceeding the 0.238 threshold. Tr. at 166, 169. He noted that in the realm of testing bodily
fluids, “there’s a little bit of variability” Tr. at 167. Sometimes this is due to the question of
the homogeneity of the fluid samples. Id. However, he opined that the test result he
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 11
obtained “[was] an accurate number for the result of alcohol in the system.” Tr. at 168.
Spencer also testified that due to the effect of alcohol dissipation, appellant would have
had a range 0.02 higher, i.e., 0.23 to 0.29, at the time of the stop. See Tr. at 171-172,
176.
{¶30} Upon review of the record and transcript in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, and applying the rationale of Troutman, we find that a reasonable finder of
fact could establish beyond a reasonable doubt, via the scientific evidence presented,
that appellant violated R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(i).
{¶31} Our standard of review on a manifest weight challenge to a criminal
conviction is stated as follows: “The court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and
determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury 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. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175,
485 N.E.2d 717.
See also, State v. Thompkins (1997),
78 Ohio St.3d 380,
678 N.E.2d 541. The granting
of a new trial “should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence
weighs heavily against the conviction.”
Martin at 175, 485 N.E.2d 717.
{¶32} Although we find the focus of the argument in appellant’s brief is on the
sufficiency of the evidence, in the interest of justice, we have reviewed the record under
the standard of Martin and we find the jury did not clearly lose its way and create a
manifest miscarriage of justice requiring that appellant's conviction be reversed and a
new trial ordered.
{¶33} Appellant's Second Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 12
{¶34} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Canton Municipal Court,
Stark County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., concurs.
Hoffman, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
JWW/d 0620
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00181 13
Hoffman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
{¶35} I concur in the majority’s analysis and disposition of Appellant’s first
assignment of error.
{¶36} I respectfully dissent from the majority’s disposition of Appellant’s second
assignment of error. While I agree with the majority the evidence was sufficient to support
his conviction, I find the .03 variance within the actual test result renders Appellant’s
conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence.2
{¶37} I would reverse Appellant’s conviction under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(i). I would
enter conviction under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(e) and remand the matter for sentencing.
2I find a distinction between the effect of a permissible variance in the calibration of a
breath-testing machine and the effect of a variance in the actual test result.
