 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Travis L. H.10/14/2005
ce of appeal.
{ } In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts the trial court erred in adjudicating appellant delinquent against the manifest weight of the evidence. We must review a trial court's delinquency adjudication under the same standard of review applicable to adult criminal convictions similarly alleged to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. In the matter of: Steven C., 6th Dist. No. E-03-052, 2004-Ohio-6313, at 6. The reviewing court must examine the entire record, weigh the evidence, consider witness credibility, and be mindful that witness credibility is an issue for the trier-of-fact to resolve. State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79, 80. The trial court is reversed only if it appears it "clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175.
{ } We will first consider appellant's assertion that the adjudication of delinquency was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Only if our examination of the record reveals the trier-of-fact clearly lost its way so as to create a manifest miscarriage of justice will the adjudication be reversed.
{ } R.C. 2913.02, theft, provides in relevant part as follows:
{ } " (A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways:
{ } "(1) Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;"
{ } In support of his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that witness Carrie B.'s testimony was full of "inconsistencies, admitted fabrications, and self-serving statements." This court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record from below and disagrees with appellant's characterizations of the testimony of witness Carrie B.
{ } The cross-examination testimony of Carrie B. reveals a barrage of questions posed to her clearly designed to eliminate the credibility of witness Carrie B. However, the responses by Carrie B. demonstrate that although she undoubtedly exercised poor judgment during these events, her testimony regarding the actions of Travis H. was forthright. It reasonably and sufficiently established his guilt.
{ } In addition to Carrie B.'s testimony, the testimony of investigating Detective McDonough was equally sufficient to sustain the adjudication. The record establishes that Travis H. inadvertently revealed his guilt. In the course of questioning by Detective McDonough, Travis H. explained detailed knowledge of the legal distinctions between "grand theft auto" and "joyriding." The testimony of Detective McDonough states in relevant part:
{ } "Q: But it was his state of mind that if you just find keys in a car and use the car with those keys, that means it's joyriding?
{ } "A: Correct.
{ } "Q: He did say to you the most that you can get me for is joyriding?
{ } "A: Correct."
{ } Counsel for appellant presented no further questions to Detective McDonough at that juncture.
{ } This court has thoroughly examined the record from below. This court concludes that sufficient and substantial evidence was presented from which the trier-of-fact was able to reasonably conclude that the theft offense was committed by Travis H. As such, this court cannot reverse the judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's first assignment of error is found not well-taken.
{ } In his second assignment of erro
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|