736 N.E.2d 928 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 1999), OT-99-027, In re Burton S.
|Citation:||736 N.E.2d 928, 136 Ohio App.3d 386, 1999-Ohio-814|
|Opinion Judge:||SHERCK, Judge.|
|Party Name:||In re BURTON S.|
|Attorney:||Spiros P. Cocoves, Toledo, for appellant. Spiros P. Cocoves, for appellant. Mark Mulligan, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and Bruce Winters, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||MELVIN L. RESNICK and PIETRYKOWSKI, JJ., concur.|
|Case Date:||December 17, 1999|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Ohio|
This appeal comes to us from a judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, in which appellant, Burton S., was adjudicated a delinquent child. Because we conclude that the trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant in admitting the results of polygraph examinations and then failing to consider that evidence, we reverse.
As a result of an incident that occurred on a school bus, a complaint was filed against appellant alleging that he committed acts which, if an adult, would constitute aggravated menacing, in violation of R.C. 2903.21. At the adjudicative hearing before a magistrate, several witnesses testified. Chad Miller, the bus driver, stated that when he reached the last stop on his route, appellant made comments to him after being told of a change in appellant's drop-off location. As appellant left the bus, a hostile exchange occurred between him and Miller. According to the driver, appellant angrily called him names and threatened to "kick [his] ass."
Miller testified that appellant's mother arrived in her pickup truck shortly after the bus arrived at the drop-off location. She parked in the parking lot, some seventy-five to one hundred feet away from the bus. Appellant then exited the bus, walked a few feet away, and continued yelling at him, daring Miller to fight since they were "not on school property." Miller testified that he repeatedly told appellant to get into his mother's vehicle. Miller further testified that appellant threatened to "kill him," and personally felt that appellant intended to seriously harm him. Ultimately, appellant turned and entered the truck. Miller stated that he was "amazed" because he had never seen appellant act this way before . When Miller went over to talk with appellant's mother, he was, however, unable to discuss the problem due to appellant's agitated state. Miller then returned to his bus. He reported the incident to his supervisor and eventually filed a police report.
[136 Ohio App.3d 389] At the close of the prosecution's case, appellant moved for dismissal, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction since the state had failed to put forth evidence of appellant's age. The magistrate granted appellant's motion. Pursuant to objections filed by the state, the juvenile court, nevertheless, reinstated the case, ruling that appellant's age was not an essential element of the crime alleged and that the trial court did not lose jurisdiction over the case simply by the failure to present evidence of appellant's age.
At a subsequent hearing, appellant's mother testified that she arrived at the drop-off point at approximately the same time as the bus and parked only fifteen feet away from the bus. She noticed that appellant and the driver were conversing before appellant left the bus. She testified that as appellant walked away from the bus, Miller came to the bus door and yelled at her son, "Just get in the truck." According to the mother, appellant then stopped approximately ten feet away from the bus, turned and said "Well, you can't make me. I'm not on school property." The driver again told appellant to get in the truck or he was going to have a problem. Miller then turned back to the bus and said he was going to call the Sheriff's Department. Appellant then allegedly said, "Fine. Go ahead."
According to appellant's...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP