State v. Wildeboer

2021-Ohio-3915 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021) · Ohio Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, Hamilton County · November 3, 2021 · No. C-210158; C-210159

Summary

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals reviewed Nicole Wildeboer's convictions for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and operating a vehicle without reasonable control. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that Wildeboer was driving and that the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court affirmed the Hamilton County Municipal Court's judgments.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, Hamilton County
Writing for the Court
Bock; Presiding Judge Zayas; Judge Myers; Judge Bock
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
November 3, 2021
Docket number
C-210158; C-210159
Procedural posture
Wildeboer appealed her bench-trial convictions in Hamilton County Municipal Court for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and operating a vehicle without reasonable control, challenging the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.
Standard of review
For sufficiency, the court viewed the probative evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asked whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Sufficiency is a question of law. For manifest weight, the court reviewed the entire record, weighed the evidence and inferences, considered witness credibility, and determined whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Precedential value
published Ohio Court of Appeals opinion
Parties
Nicole Wildeboer v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidencestandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawappellate criminal procedureOVI offenses

Questions Presented

  1. Whether sufficient evidence established that Wildeboer operated the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and without reasonable control.
  2. Whether the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Wildeboer operated the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and without reasonable control. A rational trier of fact could rely on the eyewitness testimony, Wildeboer's initial admission that she was driving, and related admissions concerning her intoxication and conduct.
  2. The convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the trial court did not clearly lose its way in resolving the conflicting testimony and evidence.

Key quotations

The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether “after viewing the probative evidence and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” (¶ 14)
In reviewing a weight-of-the-evidence claim, this court must review “the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the 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.” (¶ 19)
In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this court sits as a “thirteenth juror.” (¶ 20)

Factual background

After visiting several bars on Thanksgiving night in 2019, Wildeboer and Patrick Stone were involved in a crash that left Wildeboer's vehicle overturned. A witness testified that he saw Wildeboer's legs emerging from the driver's side and saw Stone exit from the passenger side; Wildeboer initially told an officer that she had been driving. Wildeboer later denied driving and testified that Stone was the driver, but acknowledged that she was highly intoxicated and had blacked out after the crash.

Procedural history

Following a December 2020 bench trial, the Hamilton County Municipal Court found Wildeboer guilty under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and R.C. 4511.202. She appealed in two consolidated criminal appeals. The First District Court of Appeals overruled both assignments of error and affirmed the trial court's judgments.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Ohio Court Of Appeals First Appellate District Hamilton County