State v. Pacific

[Cite as State v. Pacific, 2023-Ohio-4779.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2023-02-018

: OPINION
- vs - 12/28/2023
:

CHRISTOPHER LEE PACIFIC, :

Appellant. :

APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 22CR39899

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

The Helbling Law Firm, LLC, and John J. Helbling, for appellant.

HENDRICKSON, P.J.

{¶ 1} Christopher Lee ("Appellant") appeals his convictions in the Warren County

Court of Common Pleas for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer,

driving under suspension, and obstructing official business.

Factual Background

{¶ 2} On October 28, 2022 at around 3:30 a.m., Franklin Police Officer Keil ("Officer
 Warren CA2023-02-018

Keil") was on duty when he stopped at a red light in the far-right lane of a street within the

city of Franklin. He then noticed a silver Ford Fusion in the far-left hand turn lane, and it

appeared its rear license plate was not illuminated. He further observed a white male in the

driver seat wearing a toboggan cap and a sweatshirt with a camouflage design as well as

a female in the front passenger seat. Officer Keil was not able to identify either individual.

The Ford turned left while he turned right. He then looked in his rearview mirror and

confirmed the Ford's license plate light was not on.

{¶ 3} At that point, Officer Keil made a U-turn and proceeded toward the Ford. After

catching up, he was able to read its license plate as being "DTW 9452" and conveyed this

to dispatch. After activating his overhead lights, Officer Keil turned on his cruiser's siren for

several quick bursts to attempt to initiate a stop. However, when the Ford continued to

accelerate, he flipped on the siren, notified dispatch that the Ford was failing to comply, and

began to pursue the vehicle.

{¶ 4} During the ensuing pursuit, Officer Keil observed the Ford pass another

vehicle by crossing over the double yellow lines at speeds between 65 and 70 miles per

hour. The Ford then continued to accelerate to between 80 and 100 miles per hour through

bends in the road. The Ford proceeded to disobey several traffic signals while continuing

to speed at times in excess of 100 miles per hour. Officer Keil eventually lost sight of the

vehicle and stopped his pursuit around 3:53 a.m. However, he was notified by dispatch

that the address associated with the license plate of the Ford was 105 Cole Avenue,

Miamisburg, Ohio, and that Miamisburg Police were heading to the address. Officer Keil

and another Franklin police officer who had joined the pursuit proceeded to the address.

{¶ 5} Deputy Sheriff Billmaier ("Deputy Billmaier") with the Warren County K-9 Unit

was also on patrol that night. After hearing the police chase over the radio, he also drove

to 105 Cole Avenue. Upon arriving near the address, Deputy Billmaier noticed a Ford he

-2-
 Warren CA2023-02-018

believed matched the description of the vehicle involved in the chase. He then saw an

individual shut the Ford's driver side door and start walking towards him and 105 Cole

Avenue. When the individual was within ten feet of him, Deputy Billmaier exited his vehicle

and told the individual to stop. At that point, the individual turned and ran in between 105

Cole Avenue and a neighboring house. Notably, 105 Cole Avenue is part of a duplex with

912 Park Avenue. Deputy Billmaier did not pursue the individual because his radio was

malfunctioning which prevented him from notifying other officers of a pursuit. As he

retreated to his vehicle, Miamisburg police arrived at the scene and saw the individual run

into the back of the duplex. Shortly thereafter, Officer Keil also arrived at the duplex.

{¶ 6} Miamisburg officers made contact with a woman, later determined to be

Appellant's mother, and she consented to a search of the residence at 912 Park Avenue.

Initially, the officers made a perimeter around the residence, opened the rear door to the

home, and held Deputy Billmaier's canine partner at the door. After making several

commands for anyone inside to come out, Miamisburg police decided to search the

residence themselves and not use canine assistance.

{¶ 7} No one was found in the lower level of the residence, but the officers observed

scattered items in the laundry area and footprints on top of one of the appliances. Directly

above the appliances was an attic entrance. Miamisburg officers entered the attic and

apprehended Appellant, who was wearing a sweatshirt with a camo design and a black

toboggan cap. The keys to the Ford were not found and it was determined that Appellant's

license was suspended.

Procedural Posture

{¶ 8} Appellant was charged with four crimes: (1) Failure to Comply with an Order

or Signal of a Police Officer; (2) Driving Under Suspension; (3) Obstructing Official

Business; and (4) Illegal Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The drug-related

-3-
 Warren CA2023-02-018

charge and the facts surrounding it are not at issue on this appeal.

{¶ 9} At trial, Officer Keil identified the individual apprehended on October 28, 2022

as Appellant and noted that the Ford vehicle parked on Cole Avenue that day had the same

license plate number as the vehicle he pursued. Deputy Billmaier verified at trial that

Appellant was the individual who shut the driver's side door to the Ford and ran from him.

Appellant moved for acquittal at trial, but it was denied by the court. The jury found

Appellant guilty on all counts except the drug-related charge. The trial court sentenced

Appellant to 30 months, six months, and 90 days for each charge respectively and ran all

sentences concurrently. Appellant's driver's license was suspended for life.

{¶ 10} First Assignment of Error:

THE JURY ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT BY FINDING HIM GUILTY OF COUNTS I, II,
AND III WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

{¶ 11} Second Assignment of Error:

THE JURY ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFNDANT-
APPELLANT BY FINDING HIM GUILTY OF COUNTS I, II,
AND III AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

{¶ 12} Third Assignment of Error:

THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BY DENYING HIS MOTIONS FOR
ACQUITTAL UNDER OHIO RULE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE 29

{¶ 13} Appellant raises three assignments of error which will all be addressed

together. On appeal, Appellant argues there was no evidence presented at trial which

"unequivocally identif[ied]" him as the driver of the Ford on October 22, 2022. Police found

no keys to the Ford and no testimony tied him directly to the driver of the car except the

testimony of Officer Keil, which Appellant believes was "manufactured to fit the description"

of the clothing he was found wearing in the attic. Appellant also argues that the state failed

-4-
 Warren CA2023-02-018

to establish that he was hiding in the attic or purposely trying to prevent, obstruct or delay

the investigation of police. As a result, Appellant reasons that the evidence presented at

trial was insufficient, that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence,

and that the trial judge erred by denying his motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29. Appellant

does not challenge the fact that his license was suspended at the time of the incident.

{¶ 14} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, "[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, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph

two of the syllabus. Essentially, "the test for sufficiency focuses on whether the state met

its burden of production at trial * * *." State v. Paul, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2011-10-026,

2012-Ohio-3205, ¶ 10.

{¶ 15} However, a manifest weight of the evidence determination must examine "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),

quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.1990). Stated differently, during this examination,

appellate courts "review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable

inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving

conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest

miscarriage of justice" that a new trial must be ordered. State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359,

2018-Ohio-1562, ¶ 168.

{¶ 16} Importantly, while the appellate courts will inspect the entire record, they must

keep in mind that because testimony and evidence were presented directly to a judge or

jury, the trier of fact was in the best position to evaluate witness credibility, weigh the

evidence, and render a verdict and judgment. Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328,

-5-
 Warren CA2023-02-018

2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21; State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-

2372, ¶ 14-15. Thus, a conviction will be overturned only where there has been "a manifest

miscarriage of justice" and the evidence "weighs heavily in favor of acquittal." Thompkins,

78 Ohio St.3d 380 at 387.

{¶ 17} Under Ohio Crim.R. 29, the court, upon motion, "shall order the entry of a

judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, information, or

complaint, if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses."

Notably, "[a]n appellate court reviews the denial of a Crim.R. 29(A) motion under the same

standard as that used to review a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim." State v. Smith, 12th

Dist. Clermont No. CA2021-02-009, 2022-Ohio-1984, ¶ 55.

{¶ 18} As a result of the foregoing, "[a] determination that a conviction is supported

by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency" as

well as whether denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion was appropriate. Id. at ¶ 55, 58, citing State

v. Reeder, 12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2020-09-012 and CA2020-09-013, 2021-Ohio-2988,

¶ 31.

{¶ 19} Turning to the relevant charges on appeal, R.C. 2921.331 (failure to comply

with order or signal of police officer) states, "No person shall operate a motor vehicle so as

willfully to elude or flee a police officer after receiving a visible or audible signal from a police

officer to bring the person's motor vehicle to a stop." In turn, R.C. 4510.11 (driving under

suspension or in violation of license restriction) prohibits individuals with suspended

licenses from driving a motor vehicle. Finally, R.C. 2921.31(A) (obstructing official

business) prohibits anyone from purposely "prevent[ing], obstruct[ing], or delay[ing] the

performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official's official

capacity * * *." Purposely is defined as a "specific intention to cause a certain result, or,

when * * * it is the offender's specific intention to engage in conduct of [a prohibited] nature."

-6-
 Warren CA2023-02-018

R.C. 2901.22(A).

{¶ 20} Here, the state's case against Appellant was based on circumstantial

evidence. "Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances in a given

case, from which the jury may infer other, connected facts, which usually and reasonably

follow according to the common experience of mankind." State v. Stringer, 12th Dist. Butler

No. CA2012-04-095, 2013-Ohio-988, ¶ 31. Importantly, "[c]ircumstantial evidence

inherently possesses the same probative value as direct evidence, and a conviction based

on circumstantial evidence is no less sound than one based on direct evidence." State v.

Wallace, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2022-08-022, 2023-Ohio-1525, ¶ 22. As a result,

"circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if that evidence would convince

the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Heinish, 50

Ohio St.3d 231, 238 (1990); State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101, 2005-Ohio-6046, ¶ 75,

quoting Heinish.

{¶ 21} There is no dispute that Officer Keil was led on a dangerous high speed

chase, and the circumstantial evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly demonstrated that

Appellant was the driver of the Ford on October 28, 2022: (1) Appellant was apprehended

wearing the same clothes Officer Keil had observed the driver of the Ford wearing; (2) upon

arriving at the duplex registered to the license plate of the Ford vehicle involved in the

chase, Deputy Billmaier observed the Ford parked on the street and an individual closing

its driver side door; (3) after Deputy Billmaier stepped out of his vehicle and attempted to

question this individual, the person ran; (4) upon search of the duplex, the man who ran

from Deputy Billmaier was found in the attic above the wash room and identified as

Appellant.

{¶ 22} Given these pieces of evidence, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that

Appellant was the driver of the Ford on October 28, 2022, drove back to his residence, ran

-7-
 Warren CA2023-02-018

away from Deputy Billmaier upon being approached because Appellant was just involved

in a high-speed chase, and climbed on top of a laundry room appliance to gain access to

the attic entrance and hide from police.

{¶ 23} The fact that the keys to the Ford were never discovered does not detract

from this line of reasoning or make it impossible for Appellant to have led police on a high-

speed chase. In addition, while Appellant argues that Officer Keil's testimony matching

Appellant's clothing to that of the driver was "manufactured," we note that Appellant does

nothing to challenge Officer Keil's credibility other than point out that this testimony was

useful to further illustrate that Appellant was the driver of the Ford. With nothing else, the

trier of fact was clearly still at liberty to find Officer Keil's testimony credible.

{¶ 24} While it is true that none of the evidence derived from the series of events

described above, standing alone, "unequivocally identifies" Appellant as the driver of the

Ford, the strong circumstantial evidence, taken as a whole, leads to an inexorable

conclusion; Appellant, with a suspended license, willfully eluded police after receiving a

signal to stop and sought to obstruct the police by engaging in a high-speed pursuit as well

as purposely hiding from police in the attic of his home. The jury did not lose its way in this

case, but instead followed a logical path created by the evidence presented at trial.

{¶ 25} The assignments of error are overruled.

{¶ 26} Judgment affirmed.

PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.

-8-