 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hill9/12/2001
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, Tinika Hill ("Hill") appeals her conviction from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
I.
While patrolling the University of Akron, a university police officer observed a van slide into an intersection after locking its brakes. Officer Burnette followed the van, activated his lights and attempted to stop the vehicle. Hill, the driver of the van, failed to stop. Hill traveled across three lanes of traffic and drove through a red light. Officer Burnette made eye contact with Hill and effectuated the stop. Officer Burnette detected a strong odor of alcohol and performed several field sobriety tests.
Officer Burnette arrested Hill for driving under the influence . Officer Helmick and Sergeant Shannon arrived on the scene. Officer Helmick, a female officer, performed the pat down search on Hill and then transported her to the university police station. At the station, Hill became upset and began screaming. Her conduct was videotaped and the tape was introduced as evidence at the trial. Hill refused to take a Breathalyzer test.
Officer Burnette contacted Hill's mother, the registered owner of the van. Hill's mother arrived at the station and joined her daughter in the holding room. Officers Burnette and Helmick escorted Hill to a police cruiser to transport her to the Akron police station. While en route to the cruiser, Hill twice pushed Officer Helmick into a cement wall. Officer Helmick lost her balance the first time and landed on a copier the second time.
On March, 13, 2001, the trial court convicted Hill of assault of a police officer, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A); resisting arrest, in violation of R.C. 2921.331 (B); and driving under the influence , in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1). The trial court sentenced Hill to six months in prison for each offense, suspended her driver's license for one year and fined her $250. The sentences were concurrent.
This appeal followed. On appeal, Hill only challenges her conviction for assault of a police officer. Accordingly, her two other convictions are not before this court.
II.
Assignment of Error No. 1:
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF ASSAULT ON A PEACE OFFICER WAS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
In her first assignment of error, Hill argues that her conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
When a defendant asserts that her conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must 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 trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Otten (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340.
This discretionary power should be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented weighs heavily in favor of the defendant. Id.
R.C. 2903.13(A) provides " o person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another[.]" "A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature." R.C. 2901.22(B). "If the victim of the offense is a peace officer, a firefighter, or a person performing emergency medical service, while in the pe
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|