State v. Thorn, Unpublished Decision (10-6-1999)
State v. Thorn, Unpublished Decision (10-6-1999)
Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made: Appellant-defendant Thomas Thorn appeals from his conviction in the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
On August 20, 1998, the Wayne County Grand Jury indicted Thorn on one count of aggravated vehicular assault, a violation of R.C.
Thorn timely appeals, asserting two assignments of error.
Taking Thorn's assignments of error in reverse order, this Court first addresses his argument that the jury was prejudiced against him by the introduction of a journal entry of a prior conviction and its resulting license suspension. Thorn argues that the journal entry should not have been considered by the jury because the entry indicated prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a prohibited blood-alcohol content and the entry contained the word "guilty" three times. Thorn's rationale for this argument is that "[t]he reason for being under suspension on the time and date in question were [sic] not relevant and should have not been considered by the jurors."
This Court disagrees. Thorn was charged with driving under suspension in violation of R.C.
No person, whose driver's or commercial driver's license or permit or nonresident operating privilege has been suspended under division (B) of section
4507.16 of theRevised Code, shall operate any motor vehicle upon the highways or streets within this state during the period of suspension. No person who is granted occupational driving privileges by any court shall operate any motor vehicle upon the highways or streets in this state except in accordance with the terms of those privileges.
R.C.
In order to meet the first element of this burden, the state introduced into evidence a certified copy of a January 23, 1998 journal entry from the Wayne County Municipal Court. This form entry indicated in sections labeled "Finding" that Thorn had been found guilty of violating R.C.
The Supreme Court of Ohio's admonition that "[t]he existence of a prior offense is such an inflammatory fact that ordinarily it should not be revealed to the jury unless specifically permitted under statute or rule" has guided this Court in the past in holding the admission of prior convictions to constitute reversible error. State v. Fox (1987),
Just as the introduction of a certified copy of a prior judgment entry suspending a defendant's license is admissible in a jury trial to support a prosecution under R.C.
Whenever in any case it is necessary to prove a prior conviction, a certified copy of the entry of judgment in such prior conviction together with evidence sufficient to identify the defendant named in the entry as the offender in the case at bar, is sufficient to prove such prior conviction.
Further, Thorn's objection to the inclusion of the word "guilty" in the form boxes provided for "Finding[s]" in the judgment entry is not well taken, as the judgment entry was required to include such information. See Crim.R. 32(C) ("A judgment of conviction shall set forth the plea, the verdict or findings, and the sentence.").
Therefore, the journal entry to which Thorn objects was not admitted to prove Thorn's character in contravention of Evid.R. 404(B), or to unfairly prejudice the jury in contravention of Evid.R. 403(A). Rather, the entry served as statutorily mandated proof of an element of the crime charged. Although Thorn could have stipulated to the prior conviction and license suspension, he refused to do so, and he cannot now complain that the entry was before the jury. Cf. State v. Taniguchi (1994),
Finally, Thorn argues in his first assignment of error that, because there was insufficient evidence that he was guilty of driving under suspension, the trial court erred in overruling his motion for acquittal of that charge. This Court again disagrees.
Crim.R. 29(A) provides:
The court on motion of a defendant or on its own motion, after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, * * * if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.
It is well settled that "[a] trial court may not grant an acquittal by authority of Crim.R. 29(A) if the record demonstrates that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Flood (Dec. 9, 1998), Lorain App. No. 95CA006248, unreported, citing State v. Bridgeman (1978),
The trial transcript indicates that evidence related to each such material element of R.C.
Construing such evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, this Court cannot say that reasonable minds could have come to but one conclusion, adverse to the prosecution, as to whether each material element of R.C.
Accordingly, Thorn's two assignments of error are not well taken. The judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Wayne, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App. R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App. R. 22(E).
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Exceptions.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT BAIRD, P.J.
SLABY, J.
CONCUR
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.