In re J.H.

• Decision Date: 09 November 2022
• Docket Number: APPEAL NOS. C-210663,C-210664
• Citation: 202 N.E.3d 85
• Parties: IN RE: J.H.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

202 N.E.3d 85

IN RE: J.H.

APPEAL NOS. C-210663

C-210664

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 9, 2022

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecutor, and Alex Scott Havlin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Jessica R. Moss, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION.

Bergeron, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} An early morning raid discovered defendant-appellant J.H. sleeping in bed with a gun concealed in his pants.The juvenile court ultimately adjudged him delinquent for carrying a concealed weapon and having a weapon under disability (owing to an outstanding warrant).On appeal, J.H. challenges both adjudications based on alleged evidentiary errors, as well as on sufficiency and manifest weight grounds.Based on our review of the record, we hold that insufficient evidence supported the weapons under disability adjudication because the state presented no evidence that J.H. was a "fugitive from justice."However, we reject J.H.’s various challenges to his concealed weapons adjudication.We accordingly reverse the juvenile court's judgments in part and affirm them in part.

I.

{¶2} In the morning hours of June 24, 2021, forceful shouts broke the silence in the bedroom wherein J.H. and a few of his friends lay fast asleep.The teenage boys awoke to find themselves surrounded by glaring lights and guns held in their faces.Members of the Cincinnati Police Department's Fugitive Apprehension Unit had entered the home on Clephane Avenue and found their way to the bedroom with the hopes of locating J.H.The officers handcuffed and questioned each of the boys, then identified J.H. and released the remaining boys.After one of the officers handcuffed J.H., he noticed a gun in J.H.’s pocket.The officer then reached into J.H.’s pocket and pulled out a teal-colored gun (along with an accompanying magazine).J.H. was arrested and taken into custody without incident.

{¶3} Earlier that morning, Cincinnati Police Officer Scott Traufler had received information that J.H. was at the Clephane house.According to the state, J.H. had a warrant out for his arrest for aggravated robbery, prompting the aforementioned search and arrest of J.H. Defense counsel maintains that the warrant was improperly issued after J.H. failed to show up for a pretrial hearing that did not require his attendance in the first place.

{¶4} In September 2021, following a trial, a magistrate adjudicated J.H. delinquent as to carrying a concealed weapon and having weapons under disability.J.H. filed objections to the magistrate's decision, and following the objections hearing, the juvenile court overruled J.H.’s objections and adopted the magistrate's adjudication in pertinent part.A dispositional hearing ensued, with the court placing J.H. on probation, giving him a suspended commitment to the Ohio Department of Youth Services, ordering him to complete a residential treatment program, and ordering that the firearm be forfeited.J.H. now appeals, presenting two assignments of error.We discuss the assignments of error out of order for ease of discussion.

II.

{¶5} In a portion of his second assignment of error, J.H. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his adjudication for having weapons under disability, as well as raising a manifest weight of the evidence claim.Specifically, J.H. insists that the state presented insufficient evidence to establish that he was a fugitive from justice, an essential element of his weapons under disability offense.

{¶6} In considering a sufficiency challenge, "the question is whether the evidence presented, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."State v. Dent , 163 Ohio St.3d 390, 2020-Ohio-6670, 170 N.E.3d 816, ¶ 15.We review sufficiency determinations de novo but "the court is not to weigh the evidence."State v. McDonald , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180310, 2019-Ohio-3595, 2019 WL 4231238, ¶ 12;Dentat ¶ 15("[O]ur [sufficiency-of-the-evidence] review is de novo.").And "in conducting a sufficiency review, a reviewing court must consider all the evidence admitted at trial, even improperly admitted evidence."State v. Kareski , 137 Ohio St.3d 92, 2013-Ohio-4008, 998 N.E.2d 410, ¶ 24, citingLockhart v. Nelson , 488 U.S. 33, 34, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265(1988).

{¶7} As relevant to J.H.’s adjudication, pursuant to R.C. 2923.13(A)(1), "unless relieved from disability under operation of law or legal process, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance, if any of the following apply: (1) the person is a fugitive from justice."To be a fugitive from justice, a defendant must have been charged with a prior offense for which he sought to avoid capture and he must have "fled from justice."In re J.T. , 2014-Ohio-5062, 21 N.E.3d 1136, ¶ 22, 24 (1st Dist.).The burden rests on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that J.H. qualified as a fugitive from justice.Id.at ¶ 24.

{¶8} While no statutory definition of "fugitive from justice" exists, various appellate districts, including our own, have endeavored to flesh out the concept, albeit without uniformity in these approaches.In State v. Cherry , 171 Ohio App.3d 375, 2007-Ohio-2133, 870 N.E.2d 808(2d Dist.), the Second District, in evaluating a sufficiency challenge, elaborated on the meaning of "fugitive from justice."Id.at ¶ 19.Utilizing the definition of "fugitive from justice" as provided by extradition laws, the Second District formulated a comparable definition: "the alleged fugitive from justice must: (1) have incurred guilt – i.e., be guilty of having committed some offense; (2) be aware that he is being sought by police in connection with that offense; and (3) being aware that he is being sought by police, take some affirmative action to elude detection by police."Id.at ¶ 21.In State v. March , 2019-Ohio-2001, 136 N.E.3d 932, ¶ 24(8th Dist.), the Eighth District adopted the exact definition of "fugitive from justice" in R.C. 2923.13(A)(1) as used by the Second District in Cherry .And in an Eleventh District case, State v. McClelland , 11th Dist. PortageNos. 1488and1491, 1985 WL 4636(Dec. 20, 1985), the court weighed the fact that the defendant"knew there was still an active warrant for his arrest"(as well as the fact that the defendant had fled the jurisdiction) in determining that the defendant was a fugitive from justice.Our court, however, rejected the awareness requirement reflected in these decisions in In re J.T. , holding that "the state did not have to prove that [defendant] was aware that he was wanted for a criminal offense."In re J.T. at ¶ 22.

{¶9} In line with In re J.T. , other districts do not require awareness by the defendant that the authorities are searching for him.In State v. Hall , 5th Dist. StarkNo. 2004CA00174, 2005-Ohio-167, 2005 WL 100961, for example, the Fifth District defined "fugitive from justice" as a person who "(1) is suspected of or has been convicted of a crime; (2) is sought by the jurisdiction so that he may be subjected to its criminal system[;] and (3) has left the jurisdiction and is found within the boundaries of another."Id.at ¶ 14.The Ninth District also subscribes to this approach, framing the inquiry in nearly identical terms.SeeState v. Adkins , 80 Ohio App.3d 817, 610 N.E.2d 1143(9th Dist.1992).

{¶10} While appellate districts in Ohio disagree as to the awareness requirement and they do not use the same verbiage to define a "fugitive from justice," a consensus exists among the districts that the state must establish that the defendant took some affirmative step to elude detection by the police.SeeMarchat ¶ 25(" R.C. 2923.13(A)(1) requires the state to show that [defendant] was a fugitive from justice, which, in turn, requires the state to show that [defendant]‘took an affirmative action to elude detection by police.’ ");Cherryat ¶ 21(The defendant"must * * * take some affirmative action to elude detection by the police.");Adkins at 821, 610 N.E.2d 1143(The state must prove that the defendant"left the jurisdiction and is found within the boundaries of another.");In re J.T. , 2014-Ohio-5062, 21 N.E.3d 1136, at ¶ 22, quotingMcClellandat *9(The state must "present sufficient evidence that [defendant] had ‘fled from justice.’ ").And the court in McClelland relied on the fact that "Webster's New World Dictionary(1979) defines ‘fugitive’ as one who is fleeing from danger or justice."McClellandat *9.This standard thus requires action, rather than a defendant passively going about his business within the relevant jurisdiction.

{¶11} The facts of extant cases help illustrate the point.For example, the state may prove: (1) that the defendant left the jurisdiction, Adkins at 821, 610 N.E.2d 1143;(2) that he fled from the police when they showed up to apprehend him, McClelland , 11th Dist. PortageNos. 1488and1491;March , 2019-Ohio-2001, 136 N.E.3d 932, at ¶ 26; or (3) that he took other action to evade arrest that "endanger[ed] the life of an officer," such as engaging in a high-speed car chase or firing a gun at a police officer, McClellandat *11-12;Cherry , 171 Ohio App.3d 375, 2007-Ohio-2133, 870 N.E.2d 808, at ¶ 22;State v. Anderson , 183 Ohio App.3d 522, 2009-Ohio-3900, 917 N.E.2d 843, ¶ 42;State v. Kortz , 2d Dist. MontgomeryNo. 25041, 2013-Ohio-121, 2013 WL 209150, ¶ 5.These examples are certainly not exhaustive, but the state must show more than "uncooperative" and "reluctant" behavior toward police officers.Marchat ¶ 26.

{¶12} In the case before us, the state points to the warrant that precipitated the arrest of J.H. and his apparent awareness of the existence of the warrant to establish his "fugitive" status.However, the state...