FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DL 17-08-001295
M. KILLE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. SCHAFER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUGE.
Appellant-Defendant, T.M., appeals the judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which
adjudicated him to be a delinquent child. We reverse in part
In addition to several traffic citations, a complaint was
filed on August 6, 2017, charging T.M. (d.o.b. 3/3/02) with
one count of receiving stolen property, in violation of R.C.
2913.51, a felony of the fifth degree if committed by an
adult and one count of obstructing official business in
violation of R.C. 2921.31, a misdemeanor of the second degree
if committed by an adult. The matter ultimately proceeded to
adjudication and following a hearing, the juvenile court
adjudicated T.M. to be delinquent on both counts.
T.M. filed this timely appeal, raising one assignment of
error for our review.
verdict of the trial court was against the manifest weight of
the evidence since the state of Ohio failed to prove each and
every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable
In his sole assignment of error, T.M. contends that the trial
court's decision to adjudicate him a delinquent child by
reason of receiving stolen property was against the manifest
weight of the evidence. We agree. T.M. has not challenged the
trial court's decision to adjudicate him a delinquent
child for obstructing official business and we limit our
To determine whether a criminal conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence, we "must review the
entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and
determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence,
the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest
miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed
and a new trial ordered." State v. Otten, 33
Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). "Weight of the
evidence concerns 'the inclination of the greater
amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to
support one side of the issue rather than the
other.'" (Emphasis sic.) State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). Nonetheless,
"[a]n appellate court should exercise the power to
reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the
evidence only in exceptional cases." State v.
Carson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26900, 2013-Ohio-5785,
¶ 32, citing Otten at 340.
T.M. was adjudicated delinquent by reason of receiving stolen
property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A). That statute
provides as follows: "No person shall receive, retain,
or dispose of property of another knowing or having
reasonable cause to believe that the property has been