Driving under suspension

Ohio Appellate Reports

Unpublished

STATE v. McCLAIN, Unpublished Decision (12-18-2006)
2006-Ohio-6708 STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Richard L. MCCLAIN, Defendant-Appellant. No.
CA2005-09-102. Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District,
Warren County. December 18, 2006.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the
issuing court.] Criminal Appeal from Warren County Court,
Case No. 2004TRD05446.

Rachel A. Hutzel, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Anne
L. Tamashasky, Lebanon, OH, for plaintiff-appellee.

Robert W. Rettich, III, Germantown, OH, for
defendant-appellant.

OPINION

POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Richard McClain, appeals
his conviction in Warren County Court for driving under
suspension. We affirm appellant’s conviction.

{¶ 2} In November 2004, Officer Pultz of the
Springboro Police Department pulled over appellant for not
having his rear license plate illuminated and for failure
to use his turn signal. Officer Pultz subsequently obtained
appellant’s motor vehicle information by accessing the Law
Enforcement Automated Data System (“LEADS”)[fn1] from his
cruiser’s computer. Upon discovering that appellant’s
driver’s license was suspended, Officer Pultz cited
appellant for driving under suspension in violation of R.C.
4510.11.

{¶ 3} At a bench trial before the county court in
May 2005, Officer Pultz testified that the LEADS
information on his cruiser’s computer screen indicated that
appellant’s driver’s license was suspended. Appellant did
not object to that testimony. Officer Pultz testified that
a dispatcher printed out the LEADS information, which
Officer Pultz later retrieved.

{¶ 4} The state offered an uncertified LEADS
printout into evidence at trial. The printout indicated
that appellant’s license was under a “violator compact
suspension” and a “non-compliance suspension” at the time
Office Pultz stopped him. The county court allowed the
uncertified LEADS printout into evidence over appellant’s
objection. The court determined that the printout was
admissible under Evid.R. 803(8)’s “public records and
reports” exception to the hearsay rule. The court also
determined that Officer Pultz’s testimony authenticated the
printout pursuant to Evid.R. 901(B). The court subsequently
convicted appellant of one count of driving under
suspension.

{¶ 5} Appellant now appeals, assigning one error as
follows:

{¶ 6} “THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE
ADMISSION OF AN UNCERTIFIED LEADS PRINTOUT, WHICH IS A
VIOLATION OF EVIDENCE RULE 803(8).”

{¶ 7} In his sole assignment of error, appellant
argues that the uncertified LEADS printout did not qualify
for the “public records and reports” hearsay exception.
Appellant also argues that the printout was not properly
authenticated.

{¶ 8} Initially, we note that we would not have this
appeal had the state offered a record of appellant’s
driving status certified as accurate by the Ohio Bureau of
Motor Vehicles. A certified copy of such an official record
is admissible under the hearsay exception in Evid.R.
803(8)[fn2] and is self-authenticating under Evid.R. 902(4).

{¶ 9} Nevertheless, we need not address the hearsay
and authentication issues in this case because, even if the
county court erred in admitting the uncertified LEADS
printout, the error was harmless. There was other evidence
in the record establishing appellant’s guilt of driving
under suspension. See State v. Brown, 100 Ohio St.3d 51,
2003-Ohio-5059, ¶ 25 (error is harmless when it does
not affect outcome of case). Specifically, Officer Pultz
testified that when he accessed LEADS from his cruiser’s
computer, he found that appellant was under “several open
license suspensions.” While appellant later objected to the
admission of the LEADS printout, appellant did not object
to Officer Pultz’s testimony regarding the information he
viewed, nor did he move the court to strike the testimony.
Therefore, appellant waived any error with respect to that
testimony. See State v. Kehoe (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 591,
605; Evid.R. 103(A)(1).

{¶ 10} Officer Pultz’s testimony was sufficient to
withstand appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion, made at the close
of the state’s case. Viewing that testimony in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio
St.3d 255, 260, 2006-Ohio-2417, ¶ 37 (setting forth
standard of review for rulings on Crim.R. 29 motions).
Based on Officer Pultz’s testimony, a rational trier of
fact could have found that appellant, in violation of R.C.
4510.11(A), operated a motor vehicle on a public road while
his license was suspended.

{¶ 11} Appellant himself provided additional
testimony supporting the conclusion that he was driving
under suspension. Appellant testified that he received a
traffic ticket in Kentucky, for which he owed $300.
Appellant testified that he sent a check for the amount of
the ticket to Kentucky authorities, but they returned the
check, informing him that he was required to appear in
court. According to his own testimony, appellant never
resolved his traffic citation in Kentucky. Under the
“Nonresident Violator Compact,” the state of Ohio was
required to suspend appellant’s license upon notice from
Kentucky authorities of appellant’s failure to resolve his
ticket. See R.C. 4510.71. Appellant’s testimony regarding
his Kentucky ticket bolstered Officer Pultz’s testimony
that appellant’s license was suspended at the time of the
stop.

{¶ 12} Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sole
assignment of error. Because there was other evidence in
the record establishing appellant’s guilt of driving under
suspension, any error by the county court in admitting the
LEADS printout was harmless.

{¶ 13} Judgment affirmed.

YOUNG and BRESSLER, JJ., concur.

[fn1] LEADS is Ohio’s law enforcement computer network with
links to various records, including motor vehicle records
at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

[fn2] As Weissenberger states, the term, “public records” in
the title of Evid.R. 803(8) is a misnomer. Weissenberger’s
Ohio Evidence Treatise (2006 Ed.) 531, Section 803.102. A
more accurate term for what the rule means is “official
records,” which Weissenberger defines as records “made or
done by an officer of the government,” not necessarily
“capable of being known or observed by all.” Id.; see,
also, State v. Cooper (Mar. 18, 1982), Cuyahoga App. No.
43765, 1982 WL 5240, *3; Middleburg Hts. v. D’Ettorre
(2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 700, 707-708; but, see, State v.
Straits (Oct. 1, 1999), Fairfield App. No. 99-CA-7, 1999 WL
976212, *2 (finding that “public records” in Evid.R. 803(8)
means records available to general public).