Login | July 17, 2025
9th District reverses OVI conviction in hit and run case
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: February 3, 2022
The 9th District Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of a woman accused of being involved in a hit and run incident in Wadsworth while intoxicated.
Ramona Chirdon was driving a truck in a Save-a-Lot store parking lot on July 12, 2018 and called police to report the incident. She was advised to come to the police station in Wadsworth.
While speaking with Wadsworth Sgt. Dan Chafin in the parking lot of the police station, Chirdon acknowledged having a drink earlier in the day. After agreeing to a breathalyzer test, she blew under the legal limit at 0.06. She also indicated that she took an antianxiety medication called Vistaril.
Chirdon was ultimately charged with one count of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse. After a bench trial, the trial court found Chirdon guilty of OVI.
She was sentenced to 30 days in jail, 27 of which were suspended on the condition she successfully complete a one-year term of probation. Chirdon also received a one year driver’s license suspension and $475 fine.
On appeal, Chirdon alleged her there was no evidence presented at trial demonstrating she drove herself to the police station or that at any point she operated a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
The appellate court agreed.
R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) states, “No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state, if, at the time of the operation, * * * [t]he person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.”
In her 2-1 opinion, 9th District Judge Donna J. Carr noted the sergeant was the sole witness to testify on behalf of the state at trial. Case summary indicates that when Chirdon called to report the incident, she was advised to come to the police station to make a report. She said she was experiencing a high level of anxiety due to the accident.
The sergeant photographed the truck and took Chirdon’s license and insurance information. While speaking with her, he said he noticed a “moderate” odor of alcohol on her breath. Chirdon said she had consumed just one vodka and apple juice about four hours earlier, but the sergeant was suspicious of her claim she had only one drink.
The state argued there was circumstantial evidence Chirdon drove the truck to the police station, and thus operated the vehicle.
“According to the statement of proceedings, Sgt. Chafin testified that he came into contact with Chirdon in the parking lot of the police station,” Judge Carr wrote. “Sgt. Chafin did not testify that he observed Chirdon drive into the parking lot, nor did he indicate whether he asked if she drove to the police station. Chirdon did not admit to driving to the police station. There is nothing in the statement of proceedings indicating whether there were any witnesses who observed the truck entering the parking lot. The record is silent as to whether Chirdon was alone when she arrived at the police station. Furthermore, there is no indication in the record as to the amount of time that elapsed between the time the truck arrived at the police station and the time that Sgt. Chafin made contact with Chirdon. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the state presented evidence demonstrating that Chirdon operated the vehicle for the purposes of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).”
The judgment of the Wadsworth Municipal Court was reversed and remanded. Appellate Judge Jennifer Hensal concurred.
However, 9th District Judge Thomas Teodosio dissented, finding the state presented enough circumstantial evidence that Chirdon operated her vehicle to survive a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
“The statement of proceedings in this case reflects that Sgt. Chafin testified as to Ms. Chirdon calling the police, being advised to come to the police station, and then coming to the police station,” Judge Teodosio said in his dissenting opinion. “It also states that Sgt. Chafin testified that he spoke with Ms. Chirdon in the parking lot and then photographed her vehicle.
“…When viewing the evidence under this deferential standard of review, I would conclude that the state presented sufficient circumstantial evidence, if believed, to allow a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Chirdon operated her vehicle by driving it to the police station.”
The case is cited State v. Chirdon, 2021-Ohio-4598.