The Eleventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio has affirmed the convictions of Dennis Gail Tilton for Operating a Vehicle While Under the Influence (OVI) and Resisting Arrest, concluding that the trial court committed no reversible errors despite Mr. Tilton’s numerous challenges regarding the trial record, prosecutorial conduct, and his treatment throughout the proceedings.
Mr. Tilton appealed his conviction stemming from a two-car accident in Eastlake on September 8, 2024. He represented himself throughout the appeal process (*pro se*). The core of the appeal involved challenges to the completeness of the trial record and claims that various procedural and evidentiary rulings violated his constitutional rights.
The Incident and Initial Investigation
According to testimony from Officer Justus McGrath, when police and fire departments arrived at the scene, officers quickly determined Mr. Tilton was at fault for the collision. Officer McGrath noted that Mr. Tilton smelled of an alcoholic beverage, had glossy eyes with dilated pupils, and was unusually argumentative when asked for his license and insurance.
When asked to exit his vehicle for an assessment by EMS or to submit to field sobriety tests, Mr. Tilton refused. He reportedly gripped the steering wheel and told Officer McGrath, “no,” when asked to step out. Force was ultimately required to remove him from the car after Lieutenant John McCauley drew his taser as a final warning.
Multiple first responders noted signs consistent with intoxication. Lieutenant McCauley observed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage and bloodshot eyes after Mr. Tilton responded to questioning with profanity. Fire Department Lieutenant Kirk Lovick, an 18-year paramedic, testified that Mr. Tilton had slurred, drawn-out speech, refused to look him in the eye, and smelled of alcohol while denying any injuries. Another EMS worker, Jason Gvora, confirmed Mr. Tilton was argumentative, refused medical assessment, and had slurred speech.
After being removed from the vehicle, Mr. Tilton allegedly refused assistance getting into the police cruiser. Upon arrival at the jail, he stumbled exiting the vehicle and was uncooperative during initial booking, stating his name was “on the court docket.”
Refusal of Chemical Test
A significant element of the OVI charge involved the refusal to submit to a chemical test. Officer McGrath attempted to read Mr. Tilton his implied consent rights (BMV 2255 form) twice. Mr. Tilton reportedly interrupted the process by repeatedly demanding his catheter, which officers retrieved for him about seven minutes later. After the officer returned, Mr. Tilton claimed he did not “understand” the rights and accused the officer of slurring his speech. The officer concluded this conduct constituted a refusal of a breath test.
Mr. Tilton countered that he had not consumed alcohol that day, attributing eye irritation to chemicals used while rebuilding a boat engine. He also claimed he suffers from low blood sugar, which causes irritability and confusion, though he provided no medical documentation to support this defense.
He was convicted by a jury on one count of OVI, OVI with a refusal, driving out of lanes, and resisting arrest. The trial court merged the two OVI counts for sentencing.
Appellate Review: Record Integrity and Due Process
Mr. Tilton raised eight assignments of error, several of which challenged the integrity of the appellate record. He claimed the trial court transmitted a redacted video exhibit, and that the court system obstructed his appellate rights by failing to certify a complete and accurate record.
The appellate court found these claims meritless. While acknowledging that the record was initially incomplete, the court noted it had already ordered supplemental briefing after the full transcripts were eventually filed. Regarding the video exhibits played at trial, the court stated the certified record showed no irregularities or signs that the State utilized a redacted version; rather, it simply reflected the evidence the State chose to present. The court concluded Mr. Tilton was not deprived of due process concerning the record.
Prosecutorial Misconduct and Stipulation Concerns
Mr. Tilton next alleged prosecutorial misconduct for referencing his prior OVI conviction during opening statements, arguing this mischaracterized a statutory element as a constitutional right.
The appellate court disagreed, noting that the prior conviction was a necessary element of the specific OVI charge (O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)) that the State was required to prove. Furthermore, the defense had entered into a stipulation agreeing that Mr. Tilton had a prior OVI conviction within the relevant 20-year period.
In a supplemental filing, Mr. Tilton claimed this stipulation was signed “under coercion and duress” in the lobby, outside of record. The court dismissed this, stating that claims regarding coercion or duress surrounding a stipulation are matters *dehors* the record and must be raised in a post-conviction relief petition, not on direct appeal.
Ineffective Assistance and Evidentiary Rulings
Mr. Tilton argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain evidence and defenses. Specifically, he challenged the admission of an aerial photograph of the crash scene and the booking video showing his behavior at the jail.
The court found that the photo was authenticated sufficiently by witnesses, and the booking video was relevant to demonstrating his uncooperative nature, supporting both the OVI and resisting arrest charges. The court also noted that counsel’s decision not to play the *entire* booking video could have been a strategic choice to avoid frustrating the jury.
Regarding medical defenses, the court found that counsel reasonably presented evidence concerning Mr. Tilton’s low blood sugar and catheter needs through cross-examination and by allowing Mr. Tilton and his wife to testify.
Medical Accommodations and Treatment
The appeal heavily focused on the denial of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations and general mistreatment due to his medical conditions (catheter use, low blood sugar, and later, alleged “petite pneumonia”).
The court detailed several instances where the trial court accommodated Mr. Tilton. When he felt unwell during his testimony, claiming cold due to the A/C and low blood sugar, the court immediately excused the jury, called EMS to check on him, and allowed him to take a break, even offering a heater.
The court also addressed Mr. Tilton’s late arrival (nearly an hour after the 8:00 a.m. start time), which he attributed to illness. The court questioned him about his health status and admonished him for keeping the jury waiting. The appellate court found that the trial court managed the situation reasonably and fairly, declining to conclude that Mr. Tilton’s medical issues were ignored.
Finally, the court addressed Mr. Tilton’s complaint about the $500 restitution order, which represented the victim’s insurance deductible. Since neither Mr. Tilton nor his counsel objected to this amount at sentencing, the court found no plain error in the award.
In summary, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, and none of Mr. Tilton’s numerous assignments of error demonstrated a basis for overturning the convictions.