State v. Britten , 2021 Ohio 3187 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Britten, 2021-Ohio-3187.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-200445
TRIAL NO. 20TRD-22849
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
O P I N I O N.
vs. :
SHILOH BRITTEN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 15, 2021
Andrew W. Garth, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney,
and Rebecca Barnett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Victor Dwayne Sims, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
MYERS, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Shiloh Britten appeals the trial court’s judgment
finding him guilty, following a bench trial, of violating Cincinnati Municipal Code
502.19 for disobeying a traffic-control signal. In two assignments of error, he
challenges the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting his conviction.
Finding his arguments to be without merit, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Factual Background
{¶2} At trial, the state presented testimony from Montez Coulter that he
was involved in a traffic accident on October 21, 2020. Coulter testified that while
driving on Hewitt Avenue, he viewed another car approaching Hewitt on Bonaparte
Avenue,1 a side street that dead-ended onto Hewitt. Coulter explained that the car
traveling on Bonaparte had a stop sign at the intersection of Hewitt and Bonaparte,
but that he did not. Coulter had a clear of view of Bonaparte, and he saw that the car
traveling on Bonaparte did not stop at the stop sign or slow down at the intersection
of Bonaparte and Hewitt. Rather, the car proceeded into the intersection and turned
onto Hewitt without stopping. Coulter swerved in an attempt to avoid a collision, but
was unsuccessful. He testified that Britten was the driver of the vehicle that struck
him.
{¶3} Britten testified that he was traveling on Bonaparte toward Hewitt just
before the accident occurred, and that he stopped at the stop sign on Bonaparte
before turning left onto Hewitt. Britten additionally presented testimony from
Hakeem Lanier, who lived on Hewitt and had a view of the intersection of Hewitt and
1 Coulter mistakenly referred to Bonaparte Avenue as Wold Avenue when testifying.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Bonaparte from a window in his home. Lanier testified that he was looking out his
window while waiting for Britten to arrive, and that he saw Britten stop at the stop
sign on Bonaparte.
{¶4} The trial court found Britten guilty of violating Cincinnati Municipal
Code 502.19, and imposed a $60 fine and court costs.
Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence
{¶5} In his first and second assignments of error, Britten argues that his
conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
{¶6} In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the question is
whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
any rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492(1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. In contrast, when considering a challenge to
the weight of the evidence, the court must examine 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 court clearly lost its
way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d
380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).
{¶7} Britten was convicted of violating Cincinnati Municipal Code
502.19(b), which provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to
disobey the instruction of any traffic-control device, unless otherwise instructed by a
police officer at the location of the traffic-control device.”
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶8} Following our review of the record, we find that Britten’s conviction
was supported by sufficient evidence. Coulter’s testimony, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the prosecution as we are required to do in a sufficiency review,
established that Britten failed to stop at the stop sign on Bonaparte before turning
left onto Hewitt. This was sufficient to establish a violation of Cincinnati Municipal
Code 502.19(b).
{¶9} We further hold that Britten’s conviction was not against the manifest
weight of the evidence. The trial court heard testimony from Coulter that Britten
failed to stop at the stop sign, but it heard testimony from Britten and Lanier that
Britten had, in fact, stopped at the stop sign before turning onto Hewitt. Britten
alleges that Coulter’s testimony was not credible because it was unclear and because
Coulter contradicted himself when testifying. Britten specifically alleges that
Coulter’s testimony was conflicting regarding whether he could see Britten
approaching the stop sign on Bonaparte, but he does not cite to a specific page in the
transcript illustrating this alleged contradiction.
{¶10} As the trier of fact, the trial court was in the best position to judge the
credibility of the witnesses. See State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212(1967), paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Shepard, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-
190747, 2021-Ohio-964, ¶ 62. The trial court was entitled to find Coulter’s testimony
credible, and it was not unreasonable for the court to reject the testimony offered by
Britten and Lanier, who was Britten’s friend, as self-serving. We have reviewed the
entire record, and contrary to Britten’s assertion, we do not find that Coulter
contradicted himself regarding his view of Bonaparte and Britten’s approaching
vehicle. To the extent that Coulter’s testimony contained minor inconsistencies, the
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
trial court was entitled to believe some, all, or none of Coulter’s testimony. See
Shepard at ¶ 62. This was not the rare case in which the trier of fact lost its way and
created a manifest miscarriage of justice in finding Britten guilty. See Thompkins, 78
Ohio St.3d 380 at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541.
{¶11} Having found that Britten’s conviction was supported by sufficient
evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we overrule the
first and second assignments of error. The judgment of the trial court is, accordingly,
affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CROUSE and ZAYAS, JJ, concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
5