State v. V.A.C., 2017 Ohio 5779

Juvenile V.A.C., age 12 at the time, was charged in juvenile court with delinquency for an act that would be burglary under R.C. 2911.12(B) if committed by an adult (forced entry into the Grays’ residence/garage on Oct. 5, 2015).
Neighbor Beverly Luncan observed three girls at the property attempting to enter (saw them near the garage and surmised they raised the garage door and crawled under it) and called police.
Officer Darcy Workman arrived, heard voices/laughter inside the garage, knocked, and the noise stopped; the three girls emerged from the back of the residence and were detained.
The magistrate adjudicated V.A.C. delinquent; the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision and imposed short detention (suspended) and community service.
V.A.C. appealed claiming insufficient evidence and that the adjudication was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (V.A.C.)	Held
Force used to enter	Circumstantial testimony (neighbor’s observation + officer heard voices; garage door closed then people inside) shows they lifted garage door and crawled in	Neighbor couldn’t actually see the garage door; no direct proof of forced entry	Court: Held sufficient; any slight force suffices and circumstantial evidence supported finding of force
Whether V.A.C. was inside	Voices heard in garage and juveniles emerged from back of residence after officer ordered them out	No evidence specifically placing V.A.C. inside	Court: Held sufficient; testimony supported inference she was inside
Permission to be inside	Entry by windows/garage, abrupt silence on officer’s arrival, and lack of authorization from owners showed no permission	Owners did not explicitly testify they denied permission	Court: Held sufficient; conduct and entry method supported lack of permission
Whether persons were likely to be present	House was primary residence for Grays for years; they visited several times weekly, kept belongings there, others had keys — objectively likely someone could be present	Residence was intermittently occupied; Grays sometimes were elsewhere, neighbor thought it might be abandoned	Court: Held sufficient; objective evidence showed a permanent habitation where persons were likely to be present

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Kilby, 50 Ohio St.2d 21 (when occupants are regularly in/out and structure is a dwelling, persons may be "likely to be present")
State v. Fowler, 4 Ohio St.3d 16 (burglary of habitation does not alone presume persons likely to be present)
State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 (deference to trier of fact on credibility/weight)
State v. Cantin, 132 Ohio App.3d 808 (extended absence can undermine finding persons likely to be present)
State v. Jackson, 188 Ohio App.3d 803 (dwelling status alone insufficient to show persons likely to be present)