STATE OF OHIO v. A.N.C.
CASE NO. CA2017-02-012
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
1/29/2018
[Cite as State v. A.N.C, 2018-Ohio-362.]
S. POWELL, P.J.
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case No. 15-N000958
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for plaintiff-appellee
Tyrone P. Borger, 24 Remick Boulevard, Springboro, Ohio 45066, for defendant-appellant
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellаnt, A.N.C., appeals from the decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, adjudicating her a delinquent child. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Officer Darcy Workmаn with the Hamilton
{¶ 3} On January 11, 2016, a joint adjudication hearing was held before a juvenile court magistrate. During this hearing, the state presented testimony from the Grays, Officer Workman and the Grays’ neighbor, Beverly Luncan. Specifically, Luncan testified she watched from across the street as A.N.C., K.L.P.W., and V.A.C. forced their way into the Grays’ garage by raising the garage door to a point where they were all able to crawl under, thus prompting Luncan to call the police. Approximately five minutes later, Officer Workman arrived at the scene and heard talking and laughter coming from the Grays’ garage. Not knowing who was inside, Officer Workman testified she knocked on the garage door and ordered the occupants of the garage to come out, which prompted the talking and laughter to stop. Shortly thereafter, A.N.C., K.L.P.W., and V.A.C. were all seen on the Grays’ property emerging from behind the Grays’ home. Luncan identified A.N.C., K.L.P.W., and V.A.C. as the same girls she had seen forcing their way into the Grays’ garage and the three girls were placed under arrest by Officer Workman.
{¶ 4} On January 20, 2016, the magistrate issued a decision adjudicating A.N.C. a delinquent child. Following her adjudication, A.N.C. filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, which the trial court denied on March 29, 2016. After some delay, on January 20, 2017, the magistrate held a disрositional hearing and issued a decision committing A.N.C. to the Warren County Juvenile Detention Center for a period of five days, all of which was
{¶ 5} A.N.C. now appeals from the juvenile court‘s dеcision adjudicating her a delinquent child, raising the following single assignment of error for review.
{¶ 6} THE JUVENILE COURT‘S DECISION IN FINDING APPELLANT A DELINQUENT CHILD WAS NOT PROVEN BY A MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 7} In her single assignment of error, although couched in a claim alleging only that her adjudication as a delinquent child wаs against the manifest weight of the evidence, A.N.C. argues both that her adjudication was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We find no merit to A.N.C.‘s claims.
Standard of Review
{¶ 8} Thе standard of review employed by this court in determining whether a juvenile‘s adjudication as a delinquent child was supported by sufficient evidence is the same as the standard used in adult criminal cases. In re B.T.B., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-10-199, 2015-Ohio-2729, ¶ 16. In reviewing those types of cases, this court examines the evidence presented at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant‘s guilt bеyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Intihar, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2015-05-046, 2015-Ohio-5507, ¶ 9. In conducting such a review, the relevant inquiry is “whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could havе found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. In other words, “the test for sufficiency requires a determination as to whether the state has met its burden of produсtion at trial.” State v. Boles, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-5202, ¶ 34, citing State v. Wilson, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2006-01-007, 2007-Ohio-2298, ¶ 33.
{¶ 10} As can be seen, “‘[t]he legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different.‘” State v. Wright, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-08-152, 2014-Ohio-985, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio-52. Nevertheless, because this court‘s determination that a juvenile‘s adjudication as a delinquent child was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a finding on sufficiency, “the determination that a juvenile court‘s delinquency finding is supported by the manifest weight
Analysis
{¶ 11} As noted above, A.N.C. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that if charged as an adult would constitute burglary in violation of
{¶ 12} Initially, A.N.C. argues her adjudication as a delinquent child was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the state failed to provide any evidence that she used force to trespass into the Grays’ garage. However, although there may not have been any direct, eyewitness testimony that A.N.C. herself used force to trespass into the Grays’ garage, the state provided overwhelming circumstantial evidence that A.N.C., while working in conjunction with K.L.P.W. and V.A.C., forced her way into the Grays’ garage by raising the garage door to a point where the girls were all able to crawl under. It is well-established that circumstantial evidence has the same probative value as direct evidence. In re L.W., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24632, 2009-Ohio-5543, ¶ 34, citing Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d at 259
{¶ 13} Next, A.N.C. argues her adjudication as a delinquent child was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the state failed to provide any evidence that she trespassed into the Grays’ garage. However, just as with her claim alleging the state failed to provide any evidence that she used force to enter into the Grays’ garage, the state also provided overwhelming circumstantiаl evidence that A.N.C., K.L.P.W., and V.A.C. all trespassed into the Grays’ garage by working in conjunction with each other in order to raise the garage door to a point where they were all able to crawl under. Again, this includes evidence that Officer Workman heard talking and laughter coming from the Grays’ garage upon arriving at the scene just prior to when A.N.C., K.L.P.W., and V.A.C. were all seen emerging from behind the Grays’ residence after Officer Workman ordered the occupants of the garage to come out. A.N.C.‘s second argument lacks merit.
{¶ 14} Finally, A.N.C. argues her adjudication as a delinquent child was against the manifest weight оf the evidence because the state failed to provide any evidence she trespassed into the Grays’ garage at a time when another person, other than either of her two accomplices, K.L.P.W. and V.A.C., was present or likely to be present. We rejected this exact argument in State v. K.L.P.W., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2016-06-047 and CA2016-06-053, 2017-Ohio-5671 and State v. V.A.C., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-01-011, 2017-Ohio-5779, wherein this court upheld the juvenile court‘s decision adjudicating both K.L.P.W. and V.A.C. as delinquent children. In reviewing the record for a third time, we see no reason to deviate from our prior holdings in K.L.P.W. and V.A.C. and therefore,
Conclusion
{¶ 15} In light of the foregoing, having found no merit to any of the three arguments advanced by A.N.C. herein, we find the juvenile court‘s decision adjudicating A.N.C. a delinquent child was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. A.N.C.‘s single assignmеnt of error is therefore overruled. In so holding, we again note that while we believe a charge of burglary may have been overly harsh given the facts of this case, it is the state that decides what offense to charge, even if that charge is brought against a 12-year-old girl.
{¶ 16} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND, J. and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.