Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-09-2021

Case Style:

State of Ohio/City of Norwalk v. Jacob Miller

Case Number: H-20-011

Judge: Mark L. Pietrykowski


Plaintiff's Attorney: G. Stuart O’Hara, Jr., Law Director, and Scott M. Christophel,
Assistant Law Director

Defendant's Attorney:

Toledo, Ohio Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory


Toledo, Ohio - Criminal defense attorney represented Jacob Miller with speeding ticket charge.

Appellant’s argument is that the court erred when finding him guilty of
speeding as he rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that the speed was neither 2.
excessive nor unreasonable under the conditions. Appellant relies on multiple Ohio cases
involving presumptive, or prima facie, traffic violations and a defendant’s ability for
rebuttal. See Cleveland v. Keah, 157 Ohio St. 331, 105 N.E.2d 402 (1952); State v.
Nedelkoff, 24 Ohio Misc. 153, 263 N.E.2d 803 (C.C.1970); State v. Schultz, 1 Ohio Misc.
81, 205 N.E.2d 126 (M.C.1964).
{¶ 3} The state, conversely, argues that appellant was charged with speeding under
R.C. 4511.21(D)(1), a per se violation under which a rebuttable presumption is not
{¶ 4} R.C. 4511.21(D)(1) provides:
(D) No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or
streetcar upon a street or highway as follows:
(1) At a speed exceeding fifty-five miles per hour, except upon a
two-lane state route as provided in division (B)(10) of this section and upon
a highway, expressway, or freeway as provided in divisions (B)(12), (13),
(14), and (16) of this section * * *.
{¶ 5} Ohio courts have held that a charge under this section is a per se violation.
See State v. Heidelberg, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-01-036, 2002 WL 445038 (Mar. 22,
2002); Columbus v. Conley, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-1332, 2006-Ohio-4625; State
v. Dennis, 5th Dist. Knox No. 2003-CA-000039, 2004-Ohio-3329.
{¶ 6} Compare R.C. 4511.21(A) and (C) which provide, respectively, that a
motorist shall not drive at a speed greater or less than is reasonable under the conditions 3.
or that it is prima-facie unlawful for a motorist to exceed the posted speed limitations.
These sections allow a defendant to rebut the presumption of speeding by presenting
evidence that the speed was reasonable under the circumstances. See Bellville v.
Kieffaber, 114 Ohio St.3d 124, 2007-Ohio-3763, 870 N.E.2d 697.
{¶ 7} Because appellant was charged with a per se violation under R.C.
4511.21(D)(1), and failed to dispute the speed he was measured traveling at by handheld
police laser, we find that the court did not err in finding appellant guilty. Appellant’s
assignment of error is not well-taken.

Outcome: On consideration whereof, we find that the judgment of the Norwalk Municipal Court is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case