 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Odorizzi12/19/2001
JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
APPEARANCES:
Defendant-appellant Thomas J. Odorizzi appeals his conviction from the Belmont County Common Pleas Court finding him guilty of felony failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and driving under the influence . For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
At approximately midnight on October 1, 1999, Odorizzi was operating his vehicle on Main Street in St. Clairsville, Ohio. Officers Arbenz and Stewart were separately located in the vicinity where Odorizzi was operating his car. Officer Arbenz noticed that the headlights on Odorizzi's car were not illuminated, and motioned to Odorizzi to turn on his lights. When Odorizzi failed to turn on his lights, Officer Arbenz activated his overhead lights and sirens and pursued Odorizzi.
Odorizzi proceeded down Main Street and ran the red light at the Marietta Street intersection, where Officer Stewart was located. Odorizzi's car almost collided into Officer Stewart's patrol car. Officer Stewart activated his sirens and overhead lights and proceeded to chase Odorizzi. Officer Stewart estimated that Odorizzi was traveling at 65 to 70 mph in a 25 mph zone.
When Odorizzi finally came to a stop, he was removed from the car. Both officers believed Odorizzi was intoxicated. Odorizzi smelled of alcohol, his speech was loud and slurred, and his eyes were glassy. He could not stand up and was very uncooperative with the officers. No breathalyzer or field sobriety tests were performed on Odorizzi.
Odorizzi was brought to trial for fourth degree felony failure to comply with the signal of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.333(B), operating a motor vehicle while under FRA suspension in violation of R.C. 4511.13, and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1). The jury found Odorizzi guilty on all three counts. Odorizzi timely appealed his convictions of felony failure to comply and driving while intoxicated.
Odorizzi sets forth two assignments of error, the first of which contends:
"THE JURY ERRED IN REACHING A VERDICT OF GUILTY ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO FIND THE APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND THE JURY'S GUILTY VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."
Odorizzi raises both a sufficiency of the evidence argument and a manifest weight of the evidence argument regarding the felony failure to comply conviction and the driving under the influence conviction. The failure to comply and driving under the influence conviction will be addressed separately. However, since Odorizzi raises manifest weight and sufficiency under both of these convictions, those arguments will be addressed together.
The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that "sufficiency of the evidence" and "weight of the evidence" are not synonymous. State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380. In viewing a sufficiency of the evidence argument, a conviction will not be reversed unless the reviewing court holds that no rational trier of fact could have found that the elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Goff (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 138. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Id. Whether or not the state presented sufficient evidence is a question of law dealing with adequacy. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386.
Weight of the evidence, on the other hand, is an examination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered in a trial to support one side of the issue rather than the other. Tibbs
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|