In re S.D., 2020 Ohio 941

Delivery driver Mark Brady went to a Price Hill address to deliver pizzas; two juveniles approached holding what Brady perceived as handguns (one black, one gray) without orange safety tips.
The juveniles told Brady not to move; S.D. grabbed Brady’s money, wallet, cell phone, and pizzas; both juveniles then fled.
Police arrested S.D. and D.W.; S.D. initially told police his gun was a BB gun but said D.W. told him his was a 9 mm and handled it as if real; both juveniles admitted throwing the guns away.
S.D. admitted to the robbery but disputed that the gun he held was an operable firearm; the juvenile court trial was limited to operability of the firearm and associated gun specification.
The magistrate found the firearm operable, adjudicated S.D. delinquent for aggravated robbery/robbery, and applied a one-year firearm specification; S.D. appealed on sufficiency and manifest-weight grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether circumstantial evidence proved the gun S.D. held was an operable firearm (supporting aggravated robbery and a one-year firearm specification)	The State: the guns looked real, were held in an operable position, victim was threatened and frightened, D.W. told S.D. his gun was a 9 mm and handled it as real, and both juveniles discarded the guns	S.D.: conceded the robbery but maintained his gun was a BB gun; no operable firearm was recovered and there was no direct proof of operability	Court affirmed: circumstantial evidence was sufficient and the finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; one-year spec applies

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (role of manifest-weight review and circumstances that can support an inference of a firearm's operability)