In re E.A., 2016 Ohio 7281

On March 4, 2015, manager Venicia Sales observed juvenile E.A. place a phone case and clip-on earrings into her pocket while in an accessory store at Chapel Hill Mall.
Sales stopped E.A. and a friend outside the store (about 20–25 feet away) and escorted them back; Sales saw E.A. remove the phone case from her pocket and place it on a display and E.A. handed Sales the earrings.
A police complaint charged E.A. as a delinquent child for theft under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1).
A magistrate initially found the State failed to prove the items were taken without consent and denied adjudication; the juvenile court sustained the State’s objection and adjudicated E.A. delinquent.
E.A. appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence and that the adjudication was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals reviewed the record, credited the store manager’s testimony over E.A.’s, and affirmed the delinquency adjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Did evidence prove theft (control and lack of consent)?	State: Sales’s observation that E.A. left store with items and later produced them showed knowing control and lack of consent.	E.A.: No evidence she left store with items; officer testimony ambiguous; no proof of lack of consent.	Affirmed — Viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational trier of fact could find elements proven.
Purpose to deprive: Was there intent to permanently deprive owner?	State: Removing items from store and leaving lease line implies intent to deprive.	E.A.: She had no use for the items (case didn’t fit her phone; earrings unnecessary), undermining intent.	Affirmed — Lack of use does not negate intent to deprive.
Credibility of witnesses: Should court have believed E.A. over store manager/security?	State: Manager/security testimony was credible and corroborative.	E.A.: Conflicting testimony; police officers who allegedly were present didn’t testify; magistrate erred.	Affirmed — Credibility resolved for manager; appellate court will not reweigh credibility absent manifest miscarriage.
Manifest weight: Did evidence weigh heavily against adjudication?	State: Record supports magistrate’s factfindings; no miscarriage of justice.	E.A.: Conflicting evidence and uncertainties make adjudication against manifest weight.	Affirmed — Not an exceptional case warranting reversal; adjudication not against manifest weight.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard for reviewing manifest weight of the evidence)