 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Columbus v. Dials11/29/2005
ncies and resolve or discount them accordingly, such inconsistencies do not render defendant's conviction against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence." State v. Nivens (May 28, 1996), Franklin App. No. 95APA09-1236. In the instant case, it was within the province of the jury to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and to determine what weight to give to any inconsistencies in the testimony. See State v. Lakes (1964), 120 Ohio App. 213, 217, 29 O.O.2d 12, 201 N.E.2d 809. ("It is the province of the jury to determine where the truth probably lies from conflicting statements, not only of different witnesses but by the same witness.") See, also, State v. Conley (Dec. 16, 1993), Franklin App. No. 93AP-387. The testimony of Officers Ward and Gilbert was, in fact, conflicting with respect to what chemical test Officer Gilbert wanted to administer at the jail. Additionally, the testimony of Woodfork regarding whether appellant was under the influence conflicted with the testimony of the police officers. However, the testimony between Officers Ward and Gilbert and between the police officers and Woodfork, whether consistent or conflicting, is an issue of credibility. We note that the testimony of Ward and Gilbert was consistent in several respects, particularly with most of their observations of the behavior of appellant. Thus, since a determination of credibility is well within the province of a jury, we do not believe the conflicts in this case manifestly weigh against the evidence.
{ } Upon a review of the record, and after weighing all of the evidence presented at trial, and considering all reasonable inferences, as well as the credibility of the witnesses, we find that neither the court nor the jury lost its way so as to create a miscarriage of justice. Thompkins, supra, at 387. Accordingly, appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and his seventh assignment of error is overruled.
{ } Having overruled all of appellant's assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court.
Judgment affirmed.
KLATT and CHRISTLEY, JJ., concurs.
CHRISTLEY, J., retired of the Eleventh Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|