Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re T.M.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

June 27, 2018

IN RE: T.M.

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DL 17-08-001295

          ANGELA M. KILLE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          JULIE A. SCHAFER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUGE.

         {¶1} 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 and remand.

         I.

         {¶2} 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.

         {¶3} T.M. filed this timely appeal, raising one assignment of error for our review.

         II.

         Assignment of Error

         The 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 doubt.

         {¶4} 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 analysis accordingly.

         {¶5} 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.

         {¶6} 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.