LISBON — A Canfield man sentenced to three years in prison in March 2024 after a jury found him guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular assault recently lost his appeal.

Lowell Horst, 30, Lisbon Road, had the appeal filed on his behalf in the 7th District Court of Appeals last year, with the appellate court issuing its decision at the end of January, affirming the trial court’s judgment, although there was a dissenting opinion issued.

Horst remains incarcerated after Columbiana County Common Pleas Court Judge Megan Bickerton sentenced him on March 8, 2024 to three years in prison for aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular assault. His driver’s license was suspended for 15 years. A jury had found him guilty.

Horst admitted to watching sports highlights on YouTube on his phone and not paying attention while driving west on state Route 172 on Sept. 22, 2023. Ohio State Highway Patrol investigators concluded his Chevy Silverado traveled left of center and collided head-on with an eastbound GMC Terrain. The driver of the GMC Terrain, Leslie Coss, 83, of Massillon, suffered serious physical injuries and his wife, Mary Coss, 81, died at the scene. Leslie Coss died a few months later.

Their daughter, Sharon Lendon, administrator of their estates, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Horst and his employee, Weaver Steel Construction of Leetonia, that was settled and dismissed in the fall.

In the appeal, Horst’s appellate attorneys argued that a potential juror in his case was improperly excluded based on his religion, that the defendant’s expert witness, Henry Lipian, was improperly prohibited from providing Perception Response Time testimony that could have negated a finding of recklessness and the court erred by failing to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense of vehicular homicide.

The majority of the appellate court found the arguments without merit, affirming the trial court’s decisions.

The appellate court decision noted that the potential juror was a Mennonite minister and admitted during questioning that he doesn’t like to stand judgment of someone, with his vocation making it more challenging, but that he could do it. The court noted that “regardless, Ohio law does not prohibit the use of a peremptory challenge based on religion.” The argument by the defense was found without merit and overruled.

The appellate court decision, which was written by Judge Cheryl Waite and agreed with by Judge Scot Stevenson, sitting by assignment from the Ninth District Court of Appeals, went into great detail about the testimony of Lipian and the defendant.

Based on the record, “the trial court’s decision to limit the PRT testimony in this case was correct. Significantly, at best, Lipian could only testify as to when a reasonable person could have perceived the oncoming vehicle, not when appellant (Horst) actually saw the GMC. The exact moment appellant (Horst) perceived the GMC in this case, as pointed out by the trial court, is information only appellant (Horst) could provide. Appellant (Horst) clearly did provide this evidence, as he informed Sgt. (Daniel) Morrison that he did not see the GMC on the road, or notice that he had traveled left of center, because he was distracted by the video playing on his phone.”

Morrison was with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, the investigating agency for the crash.

The appellate judge wrote that the overwhelming evidence of record clearly shows this, that Horst didn’t see the other vehicle or notice that he traveled left of center because he was distracted by the sports highlights on a YouTube video.

“Whether this rose to the level of recklessness was solely a jury question,” the judge wrote.

As for whether the trial court erred by not giving the jury an instruction about a lesser included offense of vehicular homicide, the appellate court sided with the trial judge, saying she did not abuse her discretion.

“The difference between aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular homicide is the presence of recklessness. As discussed above, there is a plethora of evidence in the instant matter supporting a finding of recklessness,” the ruling said.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Mark Hanni dissented from the majority and wrote that the trial court erred in excluding the expert testimony regarding perception response time and should have given a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of vehicular homicide.

He wrote that the testimony from the expert would have assisted the jury in determining whether the defendant’s distraction from the video slowed his response time in reaction to seeing the other vehicle and also was meant to aid the jurors when they considered the question of whether the defendant acted recklessly.

With that testimony, he said the instruction on the lesser included offense would have been warranted. He wrote that he would have reversed the conviction and remanded the matter for further proceedings.