In re T.R.
Hon. Julie A. Edwards, P.J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
O P I N I O N
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant:
LEWIS M. TINGLE
138 N. 7th St.
Cambridge, OH 43725
For Appellee:
MARGARET BOYD LAPLANTE
Asst. Prosecuting Attorney
139 W. 8th St.
P.O. Box 640
Cambridge, OH 43725-0640
{¶1} Appellant, T.R. appeals the decision of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that T.R. was delinquent on one count of felonious assault, a second-degree felony in violation of
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} T.R. and A.B. are students at Meadowbrook High School. On April 7, 2009, while in the cafeteria, either T.R. or another student placed a ketchup packet behind A.B.‘s back while A.B. was seated in a chair. When A.B. leaned back in his chair, ketchup splattered on his shirt. T.R. stood behind A.B. A.B. tossed the ketchup packet backwards and the packet struck T.R. in the face.
{¶3} T.R. then immediately, with a clenched fist, struck A.B. in the right side of his face and head several times. Witnesses state T.R. struck A.B. between three or seven times. A.B. remained seated, covered his face, and did not defend himself. Another student pulled T.R. off A.B.
{¶4} A.B. suffered injuries to his face and right eye. The bones in his face were crushed and required surgery for the insertion of metal plates. A.B.‘s right eye blurs when he is trying to read. It is unknown whether the damage to his right eye is permanent.
{¶5} On June 15, 2009, T.R. was charged with felonious assault. A denial of the complaint was entered by the juvenile and a trial was held before the magistrate on October 2, 2009. The magistrate found the complaint to be true. In his decision filed October 5, 2009, the magistrate ordered that T.R. be placed into the Muskingum County
{¶6} T.R. filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. The trial court held a hearing on the objections on December 4, 2009. The trial court overruled T.R.‘s objections and adopted the magistrate‘s decision on December 10, 2009.
{¶7} It is from this decision T.R. now appeals.
{¶8} Appellant raises one Assignment of Error:
{¶9} “THE FINDING OF THE MAGISTRATE, THAT T.R. COMMITTED FELONIOUS ASSAULT, ADOPTED BY THE COURT, IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
{¶10} T.R. argues in his sole Assignment of Error that the decision to find T.R. delinquent was not support by the sufficiency of the evidence and is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶11} We apply the same standard of review for weight and sufficiency of the evidence in juvenile delinquency adjudications as for adult criminal defendants. In re R.G., Stark App. No. 2009CA00281, 2010-Ohio-138, ¶10 citing In the Matter of: Joshua M., Ottawa App. No. OT-04-038, 2005-Ohio-3067 at paragraph 29.
{¶12} When reviewing a claim of sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court‘s role is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492. Contrary to a manifest weight argument, a sufficiency analysis raises a question of law and does not allow the court to weigh the evidence. State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541.
{¶13} Conversely, when analyzing a manifest weight claim, this court sits as a “thirteenth juror” and in reviewing the entire record, “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed.” State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, 548, quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717.
{¶14} T.R. was found to be delinquent for violating
{¶15}
{¶16} The Ninth District Court of Appeals in State v. Murphy, Summit App. No. 24753, 2010-Ohio-1038, recently stated, “‘the mental state of “knowingly” does not require the offender to have the specific intent to cause a certain result - that is the mental state of “purposely” as defined by
{¶17} Looking at the surrounding facts and circumstances, we find that any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that T.R. knowingly caused A.B. serious physical harm. T.R. admitted that he hit A.B. on the side of the head and face multiple times while A.B. sat in his chair and covered his face. (T. 12, 34, 63). T.R. testified that he knew that he would cause A.B. physical harm if he hit him the in the face or the side of the face. (T. 63). As a result of T.R.‘s actions, A.B. suffered crushed bones in his face requiring surgery to insert metal plates and he has possible permanent damage to his right eye. (T. 13-15).
{¶18} T.R. also argues in his Assignment of Error that the finding of felonious assault was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Upon review of the record, we
{¶19} The Assignment of Error is overruled.
{¶20} The judgment of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J.
Edwards, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
HON. JOHN W. WISE
PAD:kgb
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, the judgment of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
HON. JOHN W. WISE