Agler, In re
Citation | 240 N.E.2d 874,15 Ohio App.2d 240 |
Parties | , 44 O.O.2d 482 In re AGLER. |
Decision Date | 21 August 1968 |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A proceeding against a juvenile charged with being a delinquent is civil in nature and not criminal, and a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to warrant a determination that such juvenile is a delinquent, notwithstanding that acts are charged which, if committed by an adult and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, would constitute a felony.
2. The provisions of Section 2151.35 (E), Revised Code, are not violative of the provisions of Section 5 or 10 of Article I of the Constitution of Ohio.
John E. Zimmerman, Defiance, for appellee.
Shaw, Clemens, Williams & Hines, Defiance, and Douglas W. Brown, Hicksville, for appellant.
This cause is on appeal from a judgment of the Juvenile Court of Defiance County wherein the appellant, a 16 year old boy, was found to be delinquent. The complaint alleges that 'he, in company with three adults, caused malicious damage to three farm tractors * * * in the amount of $575.10.' The evidence presented at the hearing consisted solely of the testimony presented by the three companions.
The first assignment is that the 'finding of delinquency was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.'
The record shows that on the day in question these four boys met somewhere around 8 or 8:30 in the evening and rode around in one of the other boy's cars in and around the town of Hicksville and out in the country and back until the gasoline became low, and that about one a. m. they transferred to the car owned and driven by the appellant. Some time later they saw a farm tractor in a field sitting about 50 yards from the road. The appellant stopped his car, and the boys all got out and damaged the tractor. They then went on down the road a mile or so and there saw two more tractors out in a field. The appellant again stopped his car, and the boys all got out and damaged these two tractors. The damage to all three tractors consisted of pulling off wires, smashing of headlights, denting of fenders with a wrench, letting the air out of tires, etc. There was no direct or positive testimony by any of the three witnesses as to any particular or specific damage inflicted by the appellant, as all three said it was dark and each was busy and paid no particular attention as to what was done by the others.
Upon this state of the record the Juvenile Court Judge found the appellant to be 'a delinquent child' as defined in the Juvenile Court Act. What standard or degree of proof the Judge used in arriving at his decision is not disclosed, except perhaps by inference from his statement to the appellant's counsel during the course of ruling on some motions at the close of the state's case that 'I don't think it is to be treated as you are treating it as a criminal proceeding.' But, assuming for the purpose of this opinion that the Judge treated the proceeding as civil in which the degree of proof required would be a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt as required under criminal procedure, he nevertheless followed the law as laid down by the courts of Ohio. Being a delinquent child has never been and is not now a crime in Ohio.
Even before the enactment of the Juvenile Court Act in Ohio in 1906 it was provided by statute as far back as 1870 that in considering a charge against a child under 16 years of age the grand jury could refuse to indict and report to the court that the accused child was a suitable person to be committed to the State Reform Farm (now the Fairfield School for Boys), and that the court should make such commitment. In considering a case of a fourteen year old child thus committed for burning a barn, the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of Prescott v. State, 19 Ohio St. 184, said, at page 187:
In In re Darnell, 173 Ohio St. 335, at page 336, 182 N.E.2d 321, at page 322, the Supreme Court of Ohio in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Weygandt said:
In a leading case, State v. Shardell, 107 Ohio App. 338, at page 340, 153 N.E.2d 510, at page 512, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County has summarized the law in Ohio as follows:
* * *
'* * *
* * *'
Other important Ohio cases on this issue are: Ex parte Januszewski, C.C., 196 F. 123; Cope v. Campbell, 175 Ohio St. 475, 196 N.E.2d 457; Beatty v. Riegel, 115 Ohio App. 448, 185 N.E.2d 555; and Malone v. State, 130 Ohio St. 443, 200 N.E. 473.
In Cope v. Campbell, supra, the Supreme Court holds:
* * *'
In In re Whittington, 13 Ohio App.2d 11, 233 N.E.2d 333, decided January 3, 1967, the first paragraph of the syllabus holds as follows:
'A proceeding against a juvenile charged with being a delinquent is civil in nature and not criminal, and a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to warrant determination that such juvenile is a delinquent, notwithstanding that acts are charged which, if committed by an adult and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, would constitute a felony.'
On March 15, 1967, the Supreme Court of Ohio overruled a motion to certify the record in that case and dismissed the appeal on the ground that it presented 'no substantial constitutional question.' Therefore, it is the writer's opinion that the law of Ohio today is as set out above in the Court of Appeals' opinions in the Whittington and Shardell cases quoted above. This is so, not necessarily or exclusively because of the dismissal by the Supreme Court of Ohio for the lack of a substantial constitutional question, but as being implicit from the long line of cases including Prescott v. State; Malone v. State; In re Darnell; and Cope v. Campbell, previously decided. A civil action or an action civil in nature, which would require a quantum of proof heretofore used exclusively in criminal proceedings, is incongruous.
However, the appellant strongly insists that this court should hold that the standard or degree of proof in Juvenile Court necessary to find a juvenile to be delinquent should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt and relies upon three cases: In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527; In re Urbasek, 38 Ill.2d 535, 232 N.E.2d 716; and In re Whittington, 391 U.S. 341, 88 S.Ct. 1507, 20 L.Ed.2d 625.
A careful and extensive reading of the Gault decision, which contains many ramifications that may affect Juvenile Court procedure in the future, convinces this writer, as it did the Supreme Court of Illinois in In re Urbasek, supra, 'that the Gault decision did not pass upon the precise question of the quantum of proof that must be shown to validate a finding of delinquency.' Therefore, this court, being an intermediate Court of Appeals, is bound by the Supreme Court of Ohio-the court of last resort in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Agler, In re
...of the evidence. Upon appeal, a divided Court of Appeals affirmed the disposition of Donald's case by the Juvenile Court (15 Ohio App.2d 240, 240 N.E.2d 874), holding that Donald had no right to be charged by indictment, to trial by jury, or to be held to account only by proof beyond a reas......
-
State v. Santana
...253 A.2d 789 (D.C.App.1969); In the Matter of Samuel W., 24 N.Y.2d 196, 299 N.Y.S.2d 414, 247 N.E.2d 253 (1969); In re Agler, 15 Ohio App.2d 240, 240 N.E.2d 874 (1968); State v. Arenas, 453 P.2d 915 (Or.1969). A plethora of law review articles and notes is equally in disagreement. One case ......
-
Benn, In re
...391 U.S. 341, 344, 88 S.Ct. 1507, 20 L.Ed.2d 625. Cf. Prescott v. State (1869), 19 Ohio St. 184, 187-188. See, also, In re Agler (1968), 15 Ohio App.2d 240, 240 N.E.2d 874, and State v. Shardell (1958), 107 Ohio App. 338, 153 N.E.2d 510. The traditional view prevails whether the proceedings......
-
State v. Donna Barlow, 84-LW-3734
... ... required for misdemeanor arrests). Although we find the ... reasoning in McCarty, supra, to be persuasive, this court is ... bound by decisions of the Supreme Court of Ohio. See City of ... Toledo v. Frazier (1967), 10 Ohio App. 2d 51; In re Agler ... (1968), 15 Ohio App. 2d 240. Finding that the Ohio Supreme ... Court's decision in Pyle, supra, controls the facts of ... the instant case, we must conclude that Miranda warnings were ... not required in this case or in any other case involving a ... misdemeanor ... ...