State v. Hayes — Ohio appeals court affirms failure-to-yield conviction

Case
State of Ohio v. Anamarie J. Hayes
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, Hamilton County
Judge
Bock; Kinsley; Nestor
Date Decided
September 18, 2026
Docket No.
C-250566
Topics
Traffic offenses; Failure to yield; Sufficiency of evidence; Plain error
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Anamarie J. Hayes was cited for failing to yield the right of way, a minor misdemeanor under Ohio Revised Code 4511.44(A), after another vehicle rear-ended her shortly after she turned left from a public park onto Wooster Pike, a 50-m.p.h. road.

At her bench trial, Hayes testified that she saw the approaching vehicle but believed there was sufficient distance to turn, and that she had traveled 250 to 300 feet before the collision. The responding officer estimated the collision occurred 25 to 30 feet from the park exit and concluded that Hayes had failed to yield. The municipal court found Hayes guilty and imposed a $50 fine.

The Court’s Holding

The First District affirmed. Hayes forfeited all but plain-error review of her challenge to the officer’s testimony that she failed to yield because she did not object at trial, and she did not argue plain error on appeal. The court therefore declined to construct that claim for her.

The court also held that the trial court applied the correct statute. Hayes was convicted under R.C. 4511.44(A), which requires a driver entering a highway from a place other than another roadway to yield to approaching traffic; unlike R.C. 4511.43, it does not require proof that the driver created an immediate hazard. The evidence was sufficient, and the trial court was entitled to credit the officer’s estimate over Hayes’s account when rejecting her manifest-weight challenge.

Key Takeaways

  • A conviction under R.C. 4511.44(A) does not require proof that the defendant created an immediate hazard.
  • The state need not prove the approaching driver was operating lawfully as an element of a failure-to-yield charge.
  • An unpreserved evidentiary objection is not reviewed for plain error when the appellant does not argue plain error on appeal.

Why It Matters

The decision distinguishes Ohio’s driveway-entry failure-to-yield offense from statutes that expressly require an immediate hazard. It also underscores the deference appellate courts give trial judges’ credibility determinations in bench trials, particularly where the competing accounts concern the distance traveled before a collision.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top