State v. Chhetri

[Cite as State v. Chhetri, 2026-Ohio-3924.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 16-26-02 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. NIRAN CHHETRI, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Appeal from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 24-CR-0066 Judgment Affirmed Date of Decision: October 5, 2026 APPEARANCES: R. Clayton Lopez for Appellant Eric J. Figlewicz for Appellee Case No. 16-26-02 WALDICK, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Niran Chhetri (“Chhetri”), appeals the judgment of conviction and sentence entered against him in the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas, following a bench trial in which Chhetri was found guilty of Failure to Comply with Order or Signal of Police Officer. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Procedural History {¶2} On November 13, 2024, a Wyandot County grand jury returned a single-count indictment charging Chhetri with Failure to Comply with Order or Signal of Police Officer, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B). {¶3} On December 6, 2024, an arraignment was held and Chhetri entered an initial plea of not guilty to the indictment. {¶4} On January 31, 2025, Chhetri filed motions requesting that the trial court order evaluations of Chhetri’s mental condition at the time of the alleged offense and of Chhetri’s competency to stand trial. {¶5} Also on January 31, 2025, the trial court filed a judgment entry accepting an additional plea from Chhetri of not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”). On that same date, the trial court filed a judgment entry ordering that Chhetri be evaluated by the Forensic Diagnostic Center as to both his competency -2- Case No. 16-26-02 to stand trial and his mental condition at the time of the charged offense. Those evaluations were subsequently completed by Dr. Brian O’Reilly. {¶6} On April 23, 2025, a competency hearing was held. At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the competency evaluation report authored by Dr. O’Reilly, in which he opined that Chhetri was competent to stand trial. No additional evidence was presented by either party. Based upon the competency examination report, the trial court found that Chhetri at that time understood the nature and objective of the proceedings against him and that he was capable of assisting in his own defense. The trial court therefore ruled that Chhetri was competent to stand trial. On April 28, 2025, the trial court journalized its decision with regard to Chhetri’s competency to stand trial. {¶7} On November 13, 2025, Chhetri appeared with counsel in open court and, in writing, waived his right to a jury trial, electing that his case be tried to the court. On that same date, a bench trial was then held in the case. {¶8} At the trial, the parties presented written stipulations to the court that were read into the record. Pursuant to the stipulations, the parties agreed to the authenticity and admissibility of State’s Exhibit 1, a thumb-drive containing law enforcement body-camera and dash-camera video footage of the events at issue, which occurred on October 14, 2024. The parties also stipulated to the authenticity and admissibility of Defense Exhibit A, which – pursuant to the stipulation – was represented to be the report of the psychological evaluation performed by Dr. -3- Case No. 16-26-02 O’Reilly regarding Chhetri’s mental condition at the time of the offense. However, it was then discovered that Exhibit A was the report of the competency evaluation performed by O’Reilly, not the evaluation relating to Chhetri’s mental condition at the time of the offense. Upon realizing that discrepancy, the defense moved to admit Defense Exhibit B, which was a copy of the report, dated April 4, 2025, relating to the psychological evaluation performed by O’Reilly of Chhetri’s mental condition at the time of the offense. Defense Exhibit B was subsequently admitted without objection. {¶9} In the prosecution’s case at trial, the State of Ohio presented the testimony of two witnesses, Trooper Sarah Kliesch and Sergeant Zachary Sauber of the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Trooper Kliesch testified as to her traffic stop of Chhetri on October 14, 2024, and the high-speed pursuit that ensued when Chhetri fled in his vehicle during the stop. Sergeant Sauber testified as to a subsequent conversation he had with Chhetri about the October 14, 2024 traffic stop and pursuit in which Chhetri was involved. The State of Ohio then rested its case. {¶10} After the state rested, Chhetri moved for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29, and that motion was denied by the trial court. {¶11} Chhetri then opted to call no witnesses in his own case, but presented Defense Exhibits A and B as evidence in support of his NGRI defense, which were admitted into evidence. Following that, the defense rested. Chhetri renewed his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, which the trial court again denied. -4- Case No. 16-26-02 {¶12} Following closing arguments of counsel and then a brief recess, the trial court made findings on the record reflecting the court’s determination that the prosecution had proven Chhetri guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of the offense charged in the indictment and, further, that the defense did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Chhetri was not guilty by reason of insanity. As a result, the trial court found Chhetri to be guilty of the crime of Failure to Comply with Order or Signal of Police Officer, a felony of third degree, as charged in the indictment. The trial court then ordered a pre-sentence investigation. {¶13} On November 18, 2025, the trial court filed a judgment entry summarizing the trial proceedings and reflecting the trial court’s finding that Chhetri was guilty of the charged offense. {¶14} On January 29, 2026, a sentencing hearing was held, at which time the trial court sentenced Chhetri to a three-year term of community control. On February 4, 2026, the trial court journalized its sentencing orders. {¶15} On March 2, 2026, Chhetri filed this appeal. Summary of Evidence Presented at Trial {¶16} At trial in this case, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Sarah Kliesch was the first witness called by the State of Ohio. Kliesh testified that, on October 14, 2024, she was working uniform patrol duty in a marked cruiser. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Kliesch observed Chhetri driving over the posted speed limit on U.S. Route 23 in Wyandot County. After Kliesch clocked Chhetri’s speed -5- Case No. 16-26-02 at 87 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone, she turned on her cruiser’s overhead lights and pulled in behind Chhetri to make a traffic stop. While following him, Kliesch paced Chhetri’s speed at 90 miles per hour. After Kliesch turned on her lights to initiate the traffic stop, Chhetri pulled over approximately 24 seconds later. Kliesch then walked up to the passenger side of Chhetri’s vehicle, of which he was the sole occupant. {¶17} Trooper Kliesch testified that she advised Chhetri of the reason for the traffic stop, but that she could not understand his response, as he was mumbling and slurring his words. When the trooper asked Chhetri where he was going, Chhetri could not give a definite answer, although he said he was coming from Reynoldsburg and that it was about 30 minutes to where he was traveling, where he was going to get a girl. {¶18} Trooper Kliesch asked Chhetri to shut off the car, so that she could walk around the front of his car to speak to him. However, Chhetri did not turn off his car, and so Kliesch went back to the passenger side window and again asked Chhetri to turn off the car. In response, Chhetri just stared at her. Trooper Kliesch then opened up the passenger side door, and noted that there was an open bottle of whiskey on the floorboard. Kliesch again asked Chhetri to turn off his car, but Chhetri looked at her, told her “no”, and then took off driving. As Chhetri pulled away, Kliesch managed to shut the passenger door to his car. -6- Case No. 16-26-02 {¶19} Trooper Kliesch testified that, in her brief interaction with Chhetri during the traffic stop, she noted that there was some damage to the front end of his car and that the inside of the car reeked of alcohol. Kliesch also observed that Chhetri’s eyes were bloodshot. {¶20} Trooper Kliesch testified that, after Chhetri drove off during the traffic stop, she began pursuing him in her cruiser, while radioing dispatch to report the fact he was fleeing from her. During the pursuit, Kliesch had both her overhead lights and siren activated. Kliesch testified that, after driving approximately five or six miles down the highway from where the traffic stop had occurred, Chhetri shut his headlights off and continued driving in the dark at a high rate of speed. During the pursuit, Chhetri reached speeds in excess of 138 miles per hour, drove in both lanes, cut in and out of traffic, and never turned his lights back on. {¶21} Trooper Kliesch testified that, during the pursuit, Chhetri’s vehicle left Wyandot County and entered into Hancock County. Because there was an active construction zone up ahead, with workers present, along the route that Chhetri was taking, the pursuit was called off after approximately 20 minutes. {¶22} After terminating the pursuit, Trooper Kliesch ran the license plate of the vehicle Chhetri had been driving, found Chhetri to be the registered owner of that vehicle, and was able to identify Chhetri as the driver after pulling a BMV photograph of him. At trial, Trooper Kliesch identified Chhetri in the courtroom as -7- Case No. 16-26-02 being the driver of the vehicle who fled from her during the traffic stop on October 14, 2024. {¶23} On cross-examination at trial, Trooper Kliesch confirmed that no field sobriety tests, or breath, urine, or blood tests were performed on Chhetri that night, due to the fact that he fled from her and she then had no further interaction with him after the pursuit was terminated. {¶24} The State of Ohio’s second, and final, witness at trial was Sergeant Zachary Sauber of the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Sauber testified that, on October 18, 2024, he had the opportunity to speak with Chhetri about the October 14, 2024 incident. After advising Chhetri of his Miranda rights, Sauber asked Chhetri if he was the driver of the vehicle involved in the pursuit on October 14, 2024, and Chhetri said that he was. Sauber asked Chhetri if he had consumed any alcohol on the night of October 14th, and Chhetri advised that he had drank half a bottle of vodka. Sergeant Sauber testified that, while speaking to Chhetri about the October 14th incident, Chhetri was able to generally recollect the events of that night. {¶25} After the prosecution rested its case at trial, Chhetri called no witnesses but introduced Defense Exhibits A and B in his case before resting. Exhibit A was the report of the competency evaluation performed on Chhetri by Dr. Brian O’Reilly on March 5, 2025, in which O’Reilly concluded that Chhetri was competent to stand trial. Exhibit B was Dr. O’Reilly’s report relating to the psychological evaluation performed by O’Reilly on March 5, 2025, as to -8- Case No. 16-26-02 Chhetri’s mental condition at the time of the offense. In Exhibit B, Dr. O’Reilly opined that, at the time of the offense on October 14, 2024, Chhetri was experiencing a severe mental disease and, as a result, was unable to know the wrongfulness of his actions. {¶26} After Chhetri rested his case at trial, the State of Ohio presented no additional evidence. Assignment of Error The trial court’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence where the court rejected the unrebutted forensic psychological opinion of Dr. Brian P. O’Reilly that appellant, as a result of severe schizophrenia, did not know the wrongfulness of his acts at the time of the offense, based solely on behavioral inferences drawn from appellant’s driving conduct, in violation of R.C. 2901.01(A)(14). {¶27} In the sole assignment of error raised on appeal, Chhetri asserts that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Chhetri does not contend, however, that the State of Ohio failed to prove the elements of the crime at issue. Rather, Chhetri argues that the weight of the evidence at trial demonstrated that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Chhetri argues that the trial court, as the trier of fact in this case, lost its way when it determined that Chhetri did not prove his insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence. In support of that argument, Chhetri relies primarily on the fact that the prosecution presented no expert-based evidence at trial in rebuttal of Dr. O’Reilly’s written report finding -9- Case No. 16-26-02 that, in O’Reilly’s opinion, Chhetri met the standard for being not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of committing the offense. R.C. 2901.01(A)(14) provides: A person is “not guilty by reason of insanity” relative to a charge of an offense only if the person proves, in the manner specified in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code, that at the time of the commission of the offense, the person did not know, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, the wrongfulness of the person’s acts. {¶28} A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”) is an affirmative defense, and the defendant bears the burden of proving that defense by a preponderance of the evidence. R.C. 2901.05(A); State v. Filiaggi, 86 Ohio St.3d 230, 242 (1999). {¶29} “A preponderance of the evidence is defined as ‘the greater weight of the evidence, that is, evidence that you believe because it outweighs or overbalances in your mind the evidence opposed to it. A preponderance means evidence that is more probable, more persuasive, or of greater probative value. It is the quality of the evidence that must be weighed.’” Lyon v. Wilson, 2016-Ohio-7734, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.), quoting Cawrse v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2009-Ohio-2843, ¶ 29 (5th Dist.). {¶30} The evidentiary support for an NGRI defense should be analyzed in the context of a manifest weight standard. State v. Cochran, 2017-Ohio-216, ¶ 51 (2d Dist.). {¶31} In determining whether a verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a “thirteenth juror” and examines the -10- Case No. 16-26-02 conflicting testimony. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). In doing so, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder “clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Id. Nevertheless, when assessing a manifest-weight challenge, a reviewing court must still allow the trier-of-fact appropriate discretion on matters relating to the credibility of the witnesses. State v. Stewart, 2023-Ohio-253, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.), citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967). When applying the manifest-weight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Haller, 3d Dist. Allen No. 2012-Ohio-5233, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119. {¶32} “The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts.” State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79, syllabus (1982). “If the record demonstrates that the trier of fact considered the insanity defense, the reviewing court should defer to the trier of fact’s interpretation of the evidence.” State v. Sanders, 2022-Ohio-2261, ¶ 71 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Curry, 45 Ohio St.3d 109, 114 (1989). “‘Indeed, a trial court’s judgment as to the defense of insanity will be reversed only where overwhelming and uncontradicted -11- Case No. 16-26-02 evidence to the contrary is arbitrarily ignored.’” State v. Murphy, 2016-Ohio-1165, ¶ 39 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Duncan, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4022 (9th Dist. 2001), citing State v. Brown, 5 Ohio St.3d 133 (1983). {¶33} In the instant case, Chhetri asserts that through the “unrebutted” forensic psychological opinion of Dr. O’Reilly, it was established that, at the time of committing the offense, Chhetri suffered from schizophrenia and that mental disease prevented him from knowing the wrongfulness of his actions. On that basis, Chhetri contends that he established the affirmative defense of NGRI by a preponderance of the evidence and that the trial court erred in finding him guilty. {¶34} With the above standards of review in mind, this Court’s analysis of Chhetri’s manifest-weight claim first focuses on the evidence presented by Chhetri at trial in support of his NGRI defense, specifically being the opinion of Dr. Brian O’Reilly that Chhetri was not guilty by reason of insanity. {¶35} While Dr. O’Reilly did not testify at trial, and therefore was not subject to cross-examination, his report on the evaluation of Chhetri’s mental condition at the time of the offense reflects that, on March 5, 2025, O’Reilly interviewed Chhetri for three hours via Zoom. In addition to information provided by Chhetri and his attorney during that remote interview, Dr. O’Reilly also reviewed the following: (1) the court entry and order for the two evaluations O’Reilly completed; (2) the indictment; (3) the Ohio State Highway Patrol investigation reports and videos; (4) online records from the Wyandot County Common Pleas Court, the Wyandot -12- Case No. 16-26-02 County Municipal Court, the Crawford County Common Pleas Court, and the Crawford County Municipal Court; (5) a reply to a request for records from the Wyandot County Jail indicating that jail had no records for Chhetri; (6) a reply to a request for records from the Central Ohio VA Healthcare System indicating no records for Chhetri were found; (7) records from Cedar Springs Hospital; and (8) Crawford County Jail records. {¶36} Dr. O’Reilly’s report reflects that, at the time of the evaluation, Chhetri was 25 years old and that he presented during the interview as well-dressed, well-groomed, and without acute symptoms of psychosis, thought disorder, or cognitive impairment. {¶37} During the interview with Dr. O’Reilly, Chhetri reported that he graduated from high school in 2018, that he was an above-average student, and that he withdrew from The Ohio State University in 2018 due to family problems. Chhetri reported that he enlisted in the U.S. Army in late 2020 and that, in early 2024, he received a Medical Under Honorable Conditions discharge. Chhetri reported that, after being discharged from the Army, he was employed in call centers and warehouses until the time of his arrest in this case. {¶38} Chhetri reported that, in 2023, he began developing symptoms of mental illness, that he was initially admitted to a hospital on the Fort Carson Army base in October of 2023 after developing symptoms of psychosis, and that he was then admitted to Cedar Springs Hospital, a state-operated mental health facility in -13- Case No. 16-26-02 Colorado Springs, Colorado, due to lack of resources on the military base. Chhetri reported that he was subsequently prescribed medications, that he was fine after he was treated, and that he discontinued his medications following his discharge from the hospital. Chhetri reported that, also in 2024, he was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, at the Central Ohio VA Healthcare System and that he was prescribed an antipsychotic medication and an antidepressant. Chhetri reported past abuse of drugs and alcohol, but he denied the use of alcohol at the time of the offense at issue. {¶39} Dr. O’Reilly’s report reflects that records he received from Cedar Springs Hospital indicate that Chhetri was admitted on July 18, 2023, that he then fled from the hospital but was brought back to the hospital and placed on the acute unit due to symptoms of psychosis, including confusion about reality, disorientation, and disorganization, which – according to the hospital records – Chhetri blamed on his drug use. However, the examining physician at Cedar Springs noted in the records that he was not convinced Chhetri’s symptoms were all due to substance abuse and the physician suspected a psychotic process contributed to Chhetri’s anxiety. Those hospital records also described Chhetri as a poor historian. Based on Chhetri’s behavior while at Cedar Springs and his self-reported symptoms, Chhetri was diagnosed while at Cedar Springs with Schizophreniform, Rule Out Substance-Induced Psychosis, Mushroom Use Disorder, and Pornography Use Disorder. The Cedar Springs Hospital records reflected that Chhetri was -14- Case No. 16-26-02 discharged from that hospital on August 1, 2023, after being prescribed medications and reporting that his symptoms had abated. {¶40} Dr. O’Reilly’s report also contains a summary of the information he reviewed in the Ohio State Highway Patrol investigation reports relating to the criminal offense committed by Chhetri on October 14, 2024, the details of which corresponded to the subsequent testimony given at trial by Trooper Kliesch and Sergeant Sauber. {¶41} The report issued by Dr. O’Reilly also contains a long and very detailed account provided by Chhetri to O’Reilly about the October 14, 2024 incident. According to the account of the offense provided by Chhetri, he was “experiencing symptoms of psychosis and hearing command hallucinations and paranoia.” Chhetri reported that he eluded an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper in Wyandot County on that date, although he stated that he did not know how he got to Wyandot County. Chhetri reported that he heard voices which began telling him negative information about himself, and that he became “super paranoid and super afraid.” Chhetri reported that, after being pulled over, he “took off and kept driving”, that the female trooper then chased him, and the voices told him that the trooper was going to harm him. Chhetri denied using alcohol or drugs that night. When asked by Dr. O’Reilly about his knowledge of the wrongfulness of “Failure to Comply”, Chhetri replied, “Yes sir. It’s wrong to do. I wouldn’t do that if I was not that mentally messed up…I would not do that. Because you can harm the -15- Case No. 16-26-02 pedestrians on the streets or do property damage or do damage to officers. It’s illegal.” {¶42} Dr. O’Reilly’s report also notes that, upon Chhetri’s arrest on October 18, 2024, which was in Crawford County, jail records describe Chhetri as alert and oriented to time, place, and person. Those records describe Chhetri’s mood, affect, speech, and behavior at that time as appropriate, and his thought process was described as logical. However, those records reflect that Chhetri subsequently reported chronic mental illness to jail staff and that he was then prescribed antipsychotic medication by the jail. {¶43} Finally, the report notes that Chhetri reported that he had more recently been receiving mental health treatment from the Central Ohio VA Healthcare System, where Chhetri said he had been diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type. However, the report also notes that the Central Ohio VA Healthcare System’s reply to Dr. O’Reilly’s request for records indicated that no records for Chhetri were found. {¶44} Based on all of the above information, Dr. O’Reilly’s report concludes with his opinion that, at the time of the charged offense, Chhetri was experiencing a severe mental disease, consistent with Schizophrenia. Dr. O’Reilly notes that Chhetri has a history of substance abuse and, further, that the Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper who stopped Chhetri on October 14, 2024 noted signs of alcohol use, which included the smell of alcohol emanating from his vehicle, an open bottle of -16- Case No. 16-26-02 whiskey on the floorboard, that his eyes were bloodshot and watery, that his speech was slurred, and that he covered his mouth or looked away from the trooper when speaking to her. Dr. O’Reilly notes in the report that Chhetri also later admitted to another law enforcement officer that he drank half a bottle of vodka on the night of the offense. However, Dr. O’Reilly opines in the report “that although substance abuse likely exacerbated [Chhetri’s] difficulties, he was experiencing a severe mental illness independent of it.” Concerning the issue of Chhetri’s knowledge of the wrongfulness of his offense, Dr. O’Reilly opines in the report that, “due to his acute mental illness and related impairment in his judgement and thinking, Mr. Chhetri did not know the wrongfulness of the offense charged.” With regard to that issue, the report reads that, “[a]though Mr. Chhetri has the intellectual capacity to know the wrongfulness of the offense charged and during this evaluation clearly stated it is wrong and illegal to commit the act charged and he provided rational explanations why, he also described his thinking and judgment as being significantly impaired at the time of the offense charged.” {¶45} Upon this Court’s review of the entire trial record, we agree with Chhetri that there was evidence, being the admitted report of Dr. O’Reilly, from which the trier of fact could have concluded that Chhetri suffered from a mental disease at the time of the offense. There was also some evidence, again being Dr. O’Reilly’s report, from which the trial court could have concluded that, as a result -17- Case No. 16-26-02 of Chhetri’s mental illness, he did not understand the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the offense. {¶46} However, as the Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Brown, 5 Ohio St.3d 133 (1983), “[a] defendant is not entitled to a judgment of acquittal simply because he offers expert testimony on the issue of insanity and the Government attempts to rebut it without any expert witnesses.” Id., at 134-135. “The expert’s opinion, even if uncontradicted, is not conclusive.” Id., at 135. “At the same time, it may not be arbitrarily ignored, and some reasons must be objectively present for ignoring expert opinion testimony.” Id. {¶47} In the instant case, the record establishes that this is not a case where the trial court, as the trier of fact, arbitrarily ignored the written expert opinion offered by Chhetri in support of his NGRI defense. Rather, the record reflects that the trial court gave consideration to Dr. O’Reilly’s written opinion but then ultimately concluded that Chhetri did not prove his affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. In making that determination, the trial court noted that, in particular, it was relying on the evidence of Chhetri’s alcohol consumption on the night in question and on the fact that, despite Dr. O’Reilly’s opinion, the evidence indicated that Chhetri “knew exactly what he was doing in the pursuit.” (Tr., 32). In finding that Chhetri failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he did not understand the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the offense, the trial court stated it was relying on the evidence that Chhetri initially stopped -18- Case No. 16-26-02 when pulled over by the trooper, but then sped off, and that the evidence indicated that Chhetri made a conscious decision to do so. The trial court noted that the evidence established Chhetri spent 20 minutes actively attempting to elude the trooper, while driving at extremely high rates of speed, and that Chhetri turned off his vehicle’s lights during the pursuit, which the trial court found to be persuasive evidence that Chhetri was aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct.1 {¶48} Upon this Court’s own review of the entire record, and upon weighing the evidence relevant to Chhetri’s NGRI defense as a “thirteenth juror”, we cannot find that the evidence weighed heavily against the conviction. The greater weight of the evidence, necessary for proof of that defense by a preponderance of the evidence, did not establish that Chhetri failed to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions as a result of a severe mental disease. {¶49} In reaching that determination, we note that Dr. O’Reilly’s written opinion that Chhetri suffered from a severe mental disease on October 14, 2024 was based primarily on three factors: the prior diagnosis made by Cedar Springs Hospital, the diagnosis reported by Chhetri to have been made by the Central Ohio VA Healthcare System, and Chhetri’s own account of the October 14, 2024 incident. 1 We note that pursuant to Crim.R. 23(C), in a bench trial, the trial court is directed to make a “general finding.” Anything stated beyond the general finding is considered “mere surplusage without legal significance.” State v. Smead, 2024-Ohio-2222, ¶ 14 (3d Dist.). We place no legal significance on the trial court’s factual findings in its general verdict; however, we have included some of the trial court’s succinct summaries from the trial court’s decision to help provide context where those summaries are supported by the evidence. -19- Case No. 16-26-02 However, according to Dr. O’Reilly’s report, the Cedar Springs records reflected that Chhetri’s mental illness diagnosis at that facility was reached after less than two weeks of observation and treatment, was based largely on Chhetri’s own reports of symptoms even though Chhetri was noted to be a poor historian, and there was an unresolved question as to what extent Chhetri’s drug abuse contributed to the symptoms he reported. Additionally, we note that the Cedar Springs records themselves were not introduced at trial, nor was any evidence presented relating to the qualifications of the mental health professional at Cedar Springs who treated and diagnosed Chhetri at that facility. With regard to the diagnosis of Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, reported by Chhetri to have been made by the Central Ohio VA Healthcare System, Dr. O’Reilly’s report reflects that the Central Ohio VA Healthcare System’s reply to Dr. O’Reilly’s request for records indicated that no records for Chhetri were found. Finally, Chhetri’s own account of the October 14, 2024 incident can be discounted in large part as self-serving and therefore not credible, particularly given Chhetri’s claim that he had not consumed alcohol on the night in question in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. {¶50} Furthermore, we concur in the trial court’s determination that Dr. O’Reilly’s opinion that Chhetri failed to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions on October 14, 2024 was outweighed by other evidence presented at trial. The evidence established that, on that night, Chhetri quite readily submitted himself initially to the trooper’s legal authority to stop him for speeding. Chhetri’s -20- Case No. 16-26-02 subsequent decision to flee the scene of the traffic stop and his attempt to avoid capture through a high-speed chase with law enforcement indicate an understanding of wrongfulness, which does not support Chhetri’s NGRI defense. Chhetri’s furtive conduct in fleeing from Trooper Kliesch, and in particular the fact that he turned off his headlights in order to avoid being caught, is evidence reflective of a consciousness of guilt, notwithstanding other evidence to the contrary. Accord State v. Welninski, 2018-Ohio-778, ¶ 72 (6th Dist.); State v. Myers, 2010-Ohio-4602, ¶¶ 17-19 (10th Dist.). {¶51} Accordingly, for all the reasons stated, this Court is unable to conclude that the trial court lost its way when it found that Chhetri failed to prove his insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence. It therefore was not against the manifest weight of the evidence for the trial court to reject Chhetri’s NGRI defense and find him guilty of the offense charged in the indictment. {¶52} The assignment of error is overruled. Conclusion {¶53} Having found no error in the particulars assigned and argued by the defendant-appellant, Niran Chhetri, the judgment of conviction and sentence entered against him in the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed ZIMMERMAN, P.J., and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur. -21- Case No. 16-26-02 JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the judgment for costs. It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R. 27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30. Juergen A. Waldick, Judge William R. Zimmerman, Judge John R. Willamowski, Judge DATED: /jlm -22-