A three-judge panel of the 10th District Court of Appeals held that a trial court ruling finding a Columbus motorist guilty of a pair of traffic infractions was not against the manifest weight of the evidence despite the man's argument to the contrary.

The appellate court determined the Franklin County Municipal Court did not act arbitrarily to accept the evidence provided by a Columbus police officer over that of Norman Hawkins III, 30.

"... The trial court was charged with the responsibility of resolving the disputed evidence by weighing the credibility of the witnesses and determining which testimony, based on its credibility assessment, was more persuasive," 10th District Judge Peggy Bryant wrote for the court. "The trial court found the officer's testimony more persuasive, and the record presents no basis for our substituting our judgment for that of the trial court in resolving the credibility issue the evidence presented."

Bryant cited decisions in State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, and State v. Raver, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-604, 2003-Ohio-958, which established a jury may take note of any inconsistencies and resolve them accordingly, "believing all, part or none of a witness's testimony."

According to case summary, Columbus Division of Police Officer Darryl Wiedmann stopped Hawkins for failing to use a turn signal Sept. 11, 2009. Upon stopping the man, Wiedmann observed Hawkins was not wearing a seatbelt and charged defendant with a violation of R.C. 4513.263(B)(1). Hawkins entered a not guilty plea and requested a speedy trial.

Because of Hawkins' late arrival for the trial scheduled on Oct. 1, the trial was reassigned to Oct. 16, summary continued. The trial court conducted a bench trial during which both Wiedmann and defendant testified. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found defendant guilty of both offenses and sentenced defendant accordingly.

Upon appeal, Hawkins has argued the trial court's judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence and does not support his convictions.

Columbus City Code 2131.14(A) provides that "no person shall turn a vehicle or move right or left upon a street or highway ... without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided."

According to the section, the "stop or turn signal required by this section shall be given either by means of the hand and arm, or by signal lights that clearly indicate to both approaching and following traffic intention to turn or move right or left." R.C. 4513.263(B)(1) provides that "no person shall ... operate an automobile on any street or highway unless that person is wearing all of the available elements of a properly adjusted occupant restraining device."

According to the city's evidence, Wiedmann was on routine patrol during a 6:30 p.m. to 4:30 a.m. shift. He first noticed Hawkins from the opposite side of the street. The officer reported Hawkins traveled southbound on Waverly Street, made a complete stop at the stop sign and, without signaling, made an eastbound turn. Wiedmann initiated a traffic stop for the failure to signal and made sure to observe any movement by Hawkins to determined whether he put on his seatbelt or took it off. He reported Hawkins was not wearing a seatbelt when he approached and as a result, he issued a traffic citation for failure to signal and failure to wear a seatbelt.

Hawkins testified that damage to the steering column of his vehicle left his turn signal apparatus partially inoperative, summary detailed. Although it worked to signal a right turn, the man claimed he was forced to use a hand signal for a left turn. Hawkins said Wiedmann's cruiser was in a Main Street alley before the officer pursued him. He said he turned right and the cruiser turned right behind him before stopping him. Hawkins also testified he was wearing his seatbelt, but normally takes it off to reach for his wallet in an instance such as this one.

The appellate court noted the evidence presented "could hardly be more divergent." In sum, the officer testified defendant, using no signal, turned left as the officer observed him from a northbound lane, while Hawkins testified that, using his car's right turn signal, he turned right with the officer behind him. Wiedmann said Hawkins was not wearing a seatbelt; Hawkins testified he was.

"When presented with a manifest weight argument, we engage in a limited weighing of the evidence to determine whether sufficient competent, credible evidence supports the jury's verdict to permit reasonable minds to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," Bryant continued, citing State v. Conley (Dec. 16, 1993), 10th Dist. No. 93AP-387, and State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387.

"Determinations of credibility and weight of the testimony remain within the province of the trier of fact. The jury thus may take note of any inconsistencies and resolve them accordingly ... ."

The panel overruled Hawkins' sole assignment of error, affirming the municipal court decision. Additionally, the city's motion to strike Hawkins' brief and dismiss the appeal for failure of defendant to comply with the requirements of App.R. 16 was denied as moot.

Fellow 10th District judges Susan Brown and Patrick McGrath joined Bryant to form the majority.

The case is cited as Columbus v. Hawkins, 2010-Ohio-4091.