[Cite as State v. Beekman, 2015-Ohio-4227.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2015-02-022
: OPINION
- vs - 10/13/2015
:
AARON D. BEEKMAN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 14 TRD 06087-B
Neal D. Schuett, Hamilton City Prosecutor, Timothy G. Werdmann, 345 High Street, Suite
710, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee
Meadows Law Firm, Jeffrey C. Meadows, Morgan A. Kohler, 5900 West Chester Road, Suite
E, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for defendant-appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Aaron D. Beekman, appeals his conviction in the Hamilton
Municipal Court for reckless operation. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On November 12, 2014, appellant was cited for reckless operation. The citation
stemmed from a collision between appellant and Michael Benge at the intersection of State
Route 128 and the exit ramp from U.S. Highway 27 in Ross Township, Ohio. Appellant was
Butler CA2015-02-022
driving in front of Benge and was alleged to have "brake checked" Benge several times and
then drove into an adjacent lane and swerved into the side of Benge's vehicle. The matter
proceeded to a bench trial where appellant was found guilty as charged and was ordered to
pay a $100 fine and court costs.
{¶ 3} Appellant now appeals, asserting a sole assignment of error:
{¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT GUILTY
OF VIOLATING R.C. 4511.20 BECAUSE SAID CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 5} Appellant argues his reckless operation conviction is against the manifest
weight of the evidence. A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the
"inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side
of the issue rather than the other." State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997); State
v. Glover, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2015-01-002, 2015-Ohio-3707, ¶ 29. To determine
whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court must
look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the
credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the 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). While appellate review includes the
responsibility to consider the credibility of witnesses and weight given to the evidence, these
issues are primarily matters for the trier of fact to decide. Glover at ¶ 29. An appellate court,
therefore, will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the evidence only in
extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in favor of
acquittal. Thompkins at 387, quoting Martin at 175.
{¶ 6} Appellant was convicted of willful or wanton disregard of safety on highways
-2-
Butler CA2015-02-022
(reckless operation), in violation of R.C. 4511.20(A) which provides, "[n]o person shall
operate a vehicle * * * on any street or highway in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of
persons or property." In the context of R.C. 4511.20, willful conduct "implies an act done
intentionally, designedly, knowingly, or purposely, without justifiable excuse." State v.
Earlenbaugh, 18 Ohio St.3d 19, 21 (1985), citing Black's Law Dictionary 1434 (5th Ed.1979).
Wanton conduct, on the other hand, is defined as "an act done in reckless disregard of the
rights of others which evinces a reckless indifference of the consequences to the life, limb,
health, reputation, or property of others." Id. at 21-22.
{¶ 7} Upon a thorough review of the record, we find appellant's conviction for
reckless operation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. At trial, Benge
testified he was traveling north on U.S. 27 and took the exit ramp to Route 128. The exit
ramp had a traffic light and a left-turn lane to go west on Route 128. Route 128 westbound
contained two lanes: a left-turn only lane for vehicles to re-enter southbound U.S. 27 and a
right lane to proceed west on Route 128. The right lane is abutted by a shoulder. Benge
explained that he was directly behind appellant on the exit ramp, waiting to turn left for Route
128. When traffic began to move, Benge followed closely to appellant's truck, and appellant
"slammed on his brakes," "hit the gas real quick and then slammed [his brakes] again twice."
After the intersection, appellant went to the left lane to re-enter U.S. 27 while Benge stayed in
the right lane for west Route 128. Appellant then crossed the solid white line and struck the
side of Benge's station wagon twice. He stated that the front bumper of appellant's truck
struck the back of Benge's station wagon and then the back tire of appellant' truck went over
Benge's front fender.
{¶ 8} The Ross Township police officer who investigated the crash testified he
believed appellant swerved into Benge's vehicle. The police officer found broken glass from
the mirror of Benge's station wagon in the right lane of travel on Route 128. He explained
-3-
Butler CA2015-02-022
that the location of the glass supported Benge's story that he was in the right lane when
appellant came from the left lane and hit his station wagon. The officer also stated he
believed the contact was intentional due to the "brake-checking" and the location of the
damage on the vehicle.
{¶ 9} Appellant denies causing the collision and maintains that Benge drove into the
side of his truck. Appellant testified that he was driving in the right lane of travel for Route
128 west and Benge, angry at being "brake checked," drove on the shoulder of the road, and
swerved into appellant's truck. However, in finding appellant guilty of reckless operation, the
trial court stated that while both Benge and appellant were credible, the police officer's
testimony and the location of the glass supported Benge's version of events. The court also
noted that the pictures of the damage to Benge's vehicle are consistent with Benge's story
that appellant's tire went over Benge's front fender. After reviewing the record, we do not find
that the trial court clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that
appellant's conviction must be reversed. Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 10} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.
-4-