 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Slone6/30/2005
ome conflicting testimony was presented, we cannot overturn the conviction simply because the jury chose to believe certain testimony. See Zentner at . " hen conflicting evidence is presented at trial, a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the [trier of fact] believed the prosecution testimony." State v. Gilliam (Aug. 12, 1998), 9th Dist. No. 97CA006757, at 4. The jury, charged with the duty to weigh the evidence adduced at trial and assess witness credibility, was certainly entitled to conclude that Mr. Slone was driving under the influence of alcohol. See State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus.
{ } Based upon the foregoing, we find that the jury did not create a manifest miscarriage of justice when it found Mr. Slone guilty of driving under the influence . See Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d at 340. Consequently, we conclude that Mr. Slone's conviction for driving under the influence is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{ } Accordingly, Mr. Slone' sole assignment of error is overruled.
{ } Mr. Slone's sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Wadsworth Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Wadsworth Municipal Court, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Exceptions.
LYNN C. SLABY
WHITMORE, J. MOORE, J. CONCUR
|