[Cite as Fostoria v. Heimberger, 2018-Ohio-636.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
SENECA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 13-17-24
v.
DEBRA A. HEIMBERGER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court
Trial Court No. TRD1701183
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 20, 2018
APPEARANCES:
Debra A. Heimberger, Appellant
Charles R. Hall, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 13-17-24
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Debra A. Heimberger (“Heimberger”), brings this
appeal from the July 18, 2017, judgment of the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court
finding Heimberger guilty of a red light infraction in violation of Fostoria Codified
Ordinance 313.03(c)(1), a minor misdemeanor. On appeal Heimberger argues that
there was insufficient evidence presented to convict her, that her conviction was
against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the trial court improperly relied
upon hearsay testimony to convict her.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On April 3, 2017, Heimberger was charged with a red light violation in
contravention of Fostoria Codified Ordinance 313.03(c)(1), a minor misdemeanor.
It was alleged that Heimberger ran a red light and struck a vehicle driven by Joseph
Wymer. Heimberger pled not guilty to the charge and her case proceeded to a bench
trial.1
{¶3} At trial the prosecution presented the testimony of Wymer, who
indicated that Heimberger drove through a red light and struck his vehicle while he
was proceeding through a green light. The prosecution also called Sergeant Clayton
Moore of the Fostoria Police Department who responded to the scene of the accident
to investigate it. Sergeant Moore testified that he determined that Heimberger had
1
Heimberger represented herself at trial and she brings this appeal pro se.
-2-
Case No. 13-17-24
driven through a red light and struck Wymer’s vehicle. He then cited Heimberger
for a violation.
{¶4} Heimberger testified on her own behalf indicating that she had not run
a red light, contending rather that Wymer actually struck her vehicle. At the
conclusion of the testimony the matter was submitted to the trial court for a decision.
The trial court ultimately found Heimberger guilty and ordered her to pay a $100
fine and court costs.
{¶5} It is from this judgment that Heimberger appeals, asserting the
following assignments of error for our review.2
Assignment of Error No. 1
The verdict of the trial court was against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
Assignment of Error No. 2
The verdict of the trial court convicting Appellant of a red light
violation was not based on sufficient evidence.
Assignment of Error No. 3
The verdict of the trial court was based in whole or in part on the
hearsay testimony of a police officer that did not witness the
alleged red light traffic violation.
{¶6} For the sake of clarity, we elect to address the assignments of error out
of the order in which they were raised.
2
In her brief to this Court, Heimberger styles her assignments of error as “propositions of law,” which are
appropriately directed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Nevertheless, we will treat her “propositions” as though
they were properly raised assignments of error. We would note that in her brief Heimberger’s “propositions
of law” are actually stated differently and ordered inconsistently on pages 2 and 4. We will use the stylings
of page 4 of her brief, which seem most consistent with the actual arguments being made later in the brief.
-3-
Case No. 13-17-24
Second Assignment of Error
{¶7} In her second assignment of error, Heimberger argues that there was
insufficient evidence presented to convict her. Specifically, Heimberger argues that
the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses was essentially not credible and was
not corroborated.
Standard of Review
{¶8} Whether there is legally sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction is a
question of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). Sufficiency is
a test of adequacy. Id. When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency
challenge, “ ‘the 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.
Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54, 2004–Ohio–6235, ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio
St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
Evidence Presented by the Prosecution
{¶9} At trial the prosecution first called Joseph Wymer, who indicated that
on April 3, 2017, he was driving a commercial truck with a plow hitch on the front.
Wymer testified that after he picked up breakfast he got into a lane to turn left in
order to go north toward business property. He testified that at the time he was
behind another vehicle that was turning left. Wymer testified that the light for him
-4-
Case No. 13-17-24
was green, that the vehicle in front of him proceeded to turn left through the green
light, and that Wymer went to turn left as well while the light was still green.
Wymer testified that when he went to make his left turn he was struck on the front
driver’s side of his vehicle by Heimberger’s vehicle. It was indicated that
Heimberger’s vehicle was traveling south. Wymer testified that he was not injured
as a result of the accident and that there was no damage to his vehicle, but he thought
Heimberger’s vehicle was “probably totaled.” (Tr. at 9).
{¶10} Wymer testified that he waited near his vehicle and Sergeant Moore
of the Fostoria Police Department arrived on scene approximately two minutes later.
Wymer testified that Sergeant Moore determined Heimberger to be at fault for
running through a red light.
{¶11} The prosecution next called Sergeant Clayton Moore of the Fostoria
Police Department. Sergeant Moore testified that he had received training in
accident investigation and that he had investigated numerous accidents over his 31-
year career.
{¶12} Sergeant Moore testified that he was on duty on April 3, 2017, when
he was approached by a vehicle and told by an occupant that there was an accident
at a nearby intersection. Sergeant Moore testified that he did not witness the
accident but he approached the scene to investigate it.
-5-
Case No. 13-17-24
{¶13} Sergeant Moore testified he spoke with both Wymer and Heimberger
at the scene of the accident and that he ultimately determined, “[i]n a nutshell, that
Ms. Heimberger ran a red light.” (Tr. at 35). Sergeant Moore testified that in his
opinion Heimberger running the red light caused the accident.
{¶14} Sergeant Moore testified that he spoke with Heimberger at the scene
and showed her that it was not possible for her to have a yellow light while Wymer
had a green light as he thought she had suggested. Sergeant Moore also testified
that the damage to Heimberger’s vehicle indicated she was traveling at a higher rate
of speed. He testified that, taking everything into account, including Wymer’s
definitive statement, he issued a citation to Heimberger.
{¶15} On cross-examination, Sergeant Moore testified that he estimated
Heimberger as driving approximately 30 mph while Wymer was driving
approximately 5 mph. Heimberger questioned Sergeant Moore as to the accuracy
of his report, noting apparent discrepancies. Sergeant Moore indicated that he felt
his report was not inaccurate, but rather just not entirely complete.
{¶16} At the conclusion of Sergeant Moore’s testimony, the prosecution
rested its case.
Analysis
{¶17} On appeal, Heimberger argues that there was insufficient evidence
presented to convict her. She argues that the prosecution failed to present a witness
-6-
Case No. 13-17-24
to the accident and that Sergeant Moore’s testimony was not credible because his
report contained what she felt was inaccurate information.
{¶18} Heimberger’s argument ignores the fact that Wymer, as victim in this
case, was a witness to the red light violation and that he testified that he was
proceeding through a green light when he was struck by Heimberger. It is well-
settled that the testimony of a single witness, if believed by the finder of fact, is
sufficient to support a criminal conviction. State v. Barrie, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
15AP-848, 2016-Ohio-5640, ¶ 21.
{¶19} Moreover, Sergeant Moore testified that the evidence at the scene that
he witnessed after-the-fact seemed to corroborate Wymer’s story. When viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we are directed, we
cannot find that there was insufficient evidence presented to convict Heimberger of
a red light violation. Therefore, her second assignment of error is overruled.
First Assignment of Error
{¶20} In Heimberger’s first assignment of error, she argues that even if there
was sufficient evidence presented to convict her of a red light violation, her
conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, she argues
that Sergeant Moore did not witness the accident and his testimony could not be
relied upon. She also contends that there was no damage to Wymer’s construction
-7-
Case No. 13-17-24
truck while her car was totaled, which made the officer’s speed estimate, in her
mind, seem unlikely.
Standard of Review
{¶21} In reviewing whether the trial court’s judgment was against
the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a “thirteenth juror”
and examines the conflicting testimony. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
387 (1997). In doing so, this Court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence
and all of the reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and
determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder “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.
Heimberger’s Testimony
{¶22} In her case-in-chief, Heimberger testified on her own behalf,
indicating that Wymer actually struck her and that the plow bar on Wymer’s truck
went through her car causing the damage to her vehicle. Heimberger testified that
she was in the process of stopping at a red light when she was hit by Wymer because
Wymer was “turning short” and struck her. (Tr. at 63).
{¶23} Heimberger testified that Wymer was going faster than the 5 mph that
Sergeant Moore estimated him as going and that the “flash of yellow” that she told
the officer she thought she saw was on Wymer’s plow bar, not the traffic light being
-8-
Case No. 13-17-24
yellow. (Tr. at 66). On cross-examination Heimberger emphasized that her light
was red as she approached it and that she was trying to stop at it.
Analysis
{¶24} Although Heimberger testified in her own defense to dispute the
allegations presented by the prosecution, the trial court was free to find her version
of events not to be credible. “[T]he weight to be given the evidence and the
credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of the facts.” State v.
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. In other words,
a factfinder is “entitled to believe the testimony offered by the [prosecution]’s
witnesses.” State v. Wareham, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3–12–11, 2013–Ohio–3191,
¶ 25, citing State v. Bates, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009–06–174, 2010–Ohio–
1723, ¶ 11.
{¶25} On appeal, Heimberger repeatedly asserts that there were no witnesses
to the accident because Sergeant Moore did not see it; however, she ignores the fact
that Wymer testified regarding the accident and he was the primary witness for the
prosecution. Although Heimberger suggests that the testimony against her was not
credible we cannot find that the trial court clearly lost its way in convicting her of a
red light violation. Therefore, Heimberger’s first assignment of error is overruled.
-9-
Case No. 13-17-24
Third Assignment of Error
{¶26} In her third assignment of error, Heimberger argues that the trial court
erred in allowing Sergeant Moore to introduce what she characterizes as “hearsay”
testimony related to his investigation of the purported traffic violation. Specifically,
she contends that because Sergeant Moore was not present to witness the accident,
his testimony was hearsay.
Standard of Review
{¶27} Generally, we review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude
evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Lauf, 3d Dist. Putnam No.
12–16–06, 2017–Ohio–608, ¶ 54, citing State v. Cassel, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
26708, 2016–Ohio–3479, ¶ 13, citing State v. Graham, 58 Ohio St.2d 350 (1979),
and State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337, 2012–Ohio–2407, ¶ 19. An abuse of
discretion constitutes a decision that is arbitrary, capricious, or grossly
unsound. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶28} However, where there was no objection to an evidentiary issue before
the trial court, we review the matter on appeal for plain error. State v. Holton, 3d
Dist. Logan No. 2017-Ohio-6934, ¶ 18. We take notice of plain error “with the
utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage
of justice.” State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.
To prevail under plain error, Heimberger must show that an error occurred, that the
-10-
Case No. 13-17-24
error was plain, and that but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would
have been otherwise. State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467, 2014-Ohio-1942, ¶
69, citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).
Analysis
{¶29} Heimberger did not formally object to Sergeant Moore’s testimony,
thus we would typically review it under a plain error standard. Nevertheless, even
if we assumed that Heimberger’s dispute regarding the accuracy of Sergeant
Moore’s testimony amounted to an objection, she still failed to demonstrate an error
in this case.
{¶30} First, Sergeant Moore provided no testimony beyond what he
observed at the scene of the accident after he arrived and his conclusions he reached
therefrom. He made it perfectly clear he did not witness the accident and testified
as to how he determined what, in his opinion, had happened.
{¶31} Second, even if we assumed that all of Sergeant Moore’s testimony
was hearsay and was inadmissible, the testimony of Wymer, who was struck by
Heimberger, was direct testimony that was more than adequate to convict
Heimberger. Based on these reasons, Heimberger’s third assignment of error is
overruled.
-11-
Case No. 13-17-24
Conclusion
{¶32} For the foregoing reasons Heimberger’s assignments of error are
overruled and the judgment of the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.
/jlr
-12-