State v. Nowak

Citation: 2022 Ohio 2980Docket: L-21-1215

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; August 26, 2022; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

James D. Nowak was convicted in Toledo Municipal Court for failing to comply with a police officer's order and for failing to use a turn signal. During the trial on November 1, 2021, Toledo Police Officer Gavin Paszczykowski testified, supported by dashcam footage, detailing an incident on April 16, 2021. Officer Paszczykowski observed Nowak, driving a gold Buick Century, commit multiple turn signal violations and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. Nowak did not stop and instead fled, making several turns before exiting his vehicle aggressively. He was charged under R.C. 2921.331(B), a first-degree misdemeanor, and for the turn signal violation. After the state's presentation of evidence, Nowak's motion for acquittal was denied, and he was found guilty on both charges. The court imposed a six-month suspension of his driver's license and ordered him to pay court costs, but stayed the suspension pending appeal. Nowak raised two assignments of error on appeal: the trial court's denial of his acquittal motion due to insufficient evidence and the claim that his conviction was not supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. The appeal requires a review of whether the evidence presented could convince a rational juror of Nowak's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nowak was convicted under R.C. 2921.331(B) for willfully eluding a police officer after being signaled to stop. The term 'willfully' indicates a purposeful intention to evade law enforcement, as defined in State v. Garrard, which aligns 'willfully' with 'purposefully.' The definitions of 'elude' and 'flee' indicate an avoidance or escape from police pursuit. In this case, it was agreed that Nowak continued driving for approximately 20 seconds, making three turns and covering less than 300 feet before stopping in his driveway, despite having the opportunity to stop immediately due to clear road conditions. Nowak argued on appeal that the state did not provide sufficient evidence of willful evasion, citing a similar case (State v. Bares) where the defendant also did not speed or run traffic signals. However, the circumstances in Bares differed significantly; the police were not closely following the defendant, which contributed to the court's finding of insufficient evidence for willfulness. In contrast, Officer Paszczykowski's patrol car remained just one to three car lengths behind Nowak, without any obstructions, and Nowak acknowledged there were no other vehicles or pedestrians that could have hindered his response. Nowak's reasoning for delaying his stop until reaching his driveway was deemed unreasonable.

Officers attempted to pull over Nowak in a parking lot that intersected with a busy street, but he took 20 seconds to comply with their signal, significantly longer than the typical 2 to 5 seconds observed by Officer Paszczykowski. During this delay, officers were led away from the public area, unsure of Nowak's intentions. Dashcam footage revealed that after Nowak exited his vehicle, he was joined by several unidentified individuals, prompting one officer to draw his weapon. The trial court concluded that Nowak's failure to stop constituted willful behavior, supported by evidence that he actively eluded police. Nowak challenged Officer Paszczykowski’s description of his exit as 'aggressive,' but the court emphasized that the focus is on whether the evidence, if believed, could support a conviction. The court found sufficient evidence for the conviction under R.C. 2921.331(B), noting that the state was not required to prove any threat to the public for a conviction. Nowak's second argument, that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, was also dismissed, as the court found no miscarriage of justice in the jury’s decision. The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Nowak's claims of lacking intentional wrongdoing and danger.

Nowak's claim that Officer Paszczykowski's trial testimony was 'self-serving' is dismissed, emphasizing that the assessment of evidence weight and witness credibility lies with the trier of fact, who can choose to believe or disbelieve any witness or parts of their testimony, as established in State v. Antill and State v. Awan. After reviewing the evidence, particularly the dashcam video, the court concludes that the trial court did not err in determining Nowak's guilt under R.C. 2921.33(B) for failing to comply with a police officer's order. Consequently, Nowak's conviction is upheld as not being against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's judgment from November 1, 2021, is affirmed, and Nowak is ordered to cover the costs of the appeal. A certified copy of this ruling will serve as the mandate, with further edits possible by the Ohio Supreme Court's Reporter of Decisions.