In re J.C.

2024 Ohio 1839

Opinion

[Cite as In re J.C., 2024-Ohio-1839.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLINTON COUNTY

IN RE: :

J.C. : CASE NO. CA2023-05-009

: OPINION 5/13/2024 :

:

APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 20222139

Victoria Ferry, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.

Andrew T. McCoy, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Danielle E. Sollars, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, J.C., appeals from the decision of the Clinton County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, adjudicating him a delinquent child. The victim in this

case passed away prior to trial. This appeal largely concerns the introduction of evidence

through the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule and whether the evidence

introduced at trial supported the adjudication. Clinton CA2023-05-009

RELEVANT FACTS

{¶ 2} On December 13, 2022, a complaint was filed alleging J.C. was a delinquent

child for having committed an act that if charged as an adult would constitute domestic

violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C), a fourth-degree misdemeanor. The matter

proceeded to a bench trial before the juvenile court.

{¶ 3} The evidence revealed that 16-year-old J.C. lived with his grandparents,

Charles and Linda, at their home in Clinton County, Ohio. On August 23, 2022, at 2:25

a.m., Deputy Alicia Ellis was dispatched to the home after emergency services received

a 911 hang-up call.

{¶ 4} When she arrived, Deputy Ellis observed Charles staggering around

outside attempting to flag her down. Deputy Ellis noticed that Charles had urinated

himself and was visibly scared—shaking and behaving frantically. Deputy Ellis testified:

[Charles is] pointing to a house, that's my house, that's my house, he's in there. And I'm trying to calm him down, you know * * *. * * * [M]y grandson, [J.C.], is in there. He's looking for a gun, and he's just frantic.

* * *

So I called for two additional backup units. I know that the garage door is up. I know that I have a very large property here with surrounding houses. [Charles] had stated to me to the effect of [J.C.] had thrown a bullet at me, he's got a sword, he's looking for a gun.

{¶ 5} Deputy Ellis entered the residence where she observed that the home was

in disarray. She noticed an overturned couch and multiple holes and slices in the wall.

She also found two "ninja swords" and a bullet. After exiting the residence, she asked

Charles about it:

I reiterate to Charles, I said, what in the world is going on in your house, how did you get all that damage downstairs? He said [J.C.].

-2- Clinton CA2023-05-009

And I said, but why? And he goes, he has a tendency to get mad, he uses those swords, he cuts my walls up and punches my walls. And I said tonight? And he goes, yeah, tonight, all the time. And I said okay, but what, you know, why tonight? He goes, I don't know.

Deputy Ellis testified that J.C. admitted he was in an altercation, flipped a couch, and

threw a bullet. Deputy Ellis asked J.C. if he was going to hurt anyone, and J.C. responded

that he was "having thoughts." Thereafter, J.C. was transported to the hospital for a

mental health evaluation. As previously noted, by the time of trial, Charles had passed

away. Deputy Ellis was the only witness called by the state.

{¶ 6} The defense called J.C.'s grandmother, Linda, who was not present during

the altercation. Nevertheless, Linda testified that Charles was very forgetful and "real

paranoid about things." Linda said she thought Charles may not have been in the right

frame of mind.

{¶ 7} J.C. took the stand and denied threatening Charles. He said that evening

he was bored, watching television when he decided to oil up his katana sword. He

testified that he "gently" flipped a couch while looking for the katana oil and found a bullet

in the process. J.C. claimed that he simply handed the bullet to Charles. While J.C.

acknowledged that he had been in an argument with Charles earlier in the day, J.C. said

he was "perfectly calm" that evening and the whole thing was a "big misunderstanding."

{¶ 8} The juvenile court found the state had proven the elements of the offense

beyond a reasonable doubt and adjudicated J.C. as delinquent. J.C. timely appeals,

raising three assignments of error for review.

APPEAL

{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 1:

THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ADMITTED THE

-3- Clinton CA2023-05-009

STATEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM, IN VIOLATION OF J.C.'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 10} In his first assignment of error, J.C. argues the trial court erred by admitting

inadmissible hearsay evidence during trial. He also argues he was denied his

confrontation rights.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

{¶ 11} A trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence. State v.

Hines, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2017-06-025, 2018-Ohio-1780, ¶ 52. As such, a

reviewing court will not disturb that decision absent an abuse of discretion that creates

material prejudice. State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, ¶ 66. An abuse

of discretion is more than an error of judgment or law, it signifies that the trial court's

decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Bennett, 12th Dist.

Butler No. CA2017-09-138, 2018-Ohio-3623, ¶ 27.

{¶ 12} However, we review a claim that a criminal defendant's rights have been

violated under the Confrontation Clause de novo. State v. Doby, 12th Dist. Butler No.

CA2013-05-084, 2014-Ohio-2471, ¶ 31. In a de novo review, this court independently

reviews the record without giving deference to the trial court's decision. State v. Knecht,

12th Dist. Warren No. CA2015-04-037, 2015-Ohio-4316, ¶ 20.

HEARSAY AND EXCITED UTTERANCES

{¶ 13} "Hearsay" is "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while

testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter

asserted." Evid.R. 801(C). Hearsay is generally inadmissible in court unless the

testimony is deemed "not hearsay" under Evid.R. 801(D) or falls under one of the hearsay

exceptions articulated in Evid.R. 803 and 804, such as an excited utterance.

-4- Clinton CA2023-05-009

{¶ 14} An excited utterance is "a statement relating to a startling event or condition

made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or

condition." Evid. R. 803(2). A hearsay statement is admissible as an excited utterance if

(1) there was an event startling enough to produce a nervous excitement in the declarant,

(2) the statement was made while under the stress of excitement caused by the event,

(3) the statement related to the startling event, and (4) the declarant must have had an

opportunity to personally observe the startling event. State v. Robinson, 12th Dist. Butler

CA2015-01-013, 2015-Ohio-4533, ¶ 27.

{¶ 15} Following review, we find the trial court did not err by admitting the

statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The record reveals

that Charles was attempting to flag Deputy Ellis down while visibly scared. He was

shaking and behaving frantically. He had urinated himself. As Deputy Ellis tried to calm

Charles down, Charles told the deputy that J.C. had a sword, was looking for a gun, and

had thrown a bullet at him. After looking through the house, Deputy Ellis inquired about

the state of the home and Charles replied "[J.C.]." He said J.C. gets mad and cuts up or

punches the wall and that J.C. had done so that night.

{¶ 16} On appeal, J.C. offers several faulty and conclusory arguments. He first

claims there was no "startling event." He cites testimony from Linda who said she thought

Charles was not in the right state of mind.1 J.C.'s second argument is that certain

statements made by Charles were unrelated to the events that evening because the home

had actually been damaged years before. Therefore, he argues that Charles' statement

concerning the state of the residence "did not relate to the events of that evening."

{¶ 17} However, J.C.'s arguments are clearly without merit. In the present case,

1. J.C. says there was no gun in the home. Yet, Deputy Ellis testified that Charles took her to the gun's hiding spot and showed her where it had been hidden.

-5- Clinton CA2023-05-009

the startling event was J.C.'s violent and threatening behavior directed at his grandfather.

Charles understood that J.C. had a sword and was searching for a gun. The behavior so

alarmed Charles that he was found outside frantically waving down an officer after having

urinated himself. J.C.'s argument that Charles was not in his right mind goes to credibility

or reliability, not admissibility. The reliability of a hearsay witness is a question for the

trier of fact that does not affect the admissibility of the statement. State v. Wilson, 4th

Dist. Scioto No. 13CA3542, 2015-Ohio-2016, ¶ 95, citing State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d

107 (1990) (a hearsay witness's credibility "does not affect the statement's admissibility").

{¶ 18} We further disagree with J.C.'s bald assertion and claim that Charles'

testimony about who damaged the home was unrelated to the startling event. Charles

was clearly asked about the state of the home in reference to the startling event. Charles

said J.C. damaged the home. Charles said J.C. has a "tendency to get mad" and cuts up

and punches the walls. Charles said J.C. had done so that night. These were statements

related to the emergency that occurred that evening, not remote commentary on prior

behavior. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err by admitting Charles' statements

as excited utterances.

THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE

{¶ 19} J.C. also argues his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was

violated because he was unable to cross-examine Charles. The Confrontation Clause of

the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "[i]n all criminal

prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses

against him." The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a

witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant

had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. State v. Haag, 12th Dist. Preble No.

CA2022-05-008, 2023-Ohio-877, ¶ 10, citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-

-6- Clinton CA2023-05-009

54, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004).

{¶ 20} It is undisputed that J.C. did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine

Charles. Therefore, the issue is whether Charles' statements admitted into evidence were

testimonial in nature. This is because the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation of

witnesses does not extend to nontestimonial hearsay. State v. Norris, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 26147, 2015-Ohio-624, ¶ 13, citing State v. Stahl, 111 Ohio St. 3d 186,

2006-Ohio-5482, ¶ 21. "Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police

interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the

interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency." Davis v.

Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266 (2006). "They are testimonial when the

circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the

primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially

relevant to later criminal prosecution." Id. In determining whether a declarant's

statements are testimonial, courts should look to all of the relevant circumstances. Haag,

2023-Ohio-877 at ¶ 11.

{¶ 21} We find the admission of Charles' statements did not violate J.C.'s

confrontation rights because the statements were nontestimonial. The record shows that

Charles made the statements shortly after being threatened by J.C. Charles was frantic

and waving his arms in an attempt to flag Deputy Ellis down. He told her that J.C. was

"looking for a gun," had thrown a bullet at him, and had a sword. We find the

circumstances objectively indicate that Charles' primary purpose was to obtain assistance

from law enforcement. Charles was not acting as a witness; he was not testifying. He

was frantically attempting to get help. Therefore, J.C.'s claim that the testimony violated

the Confrontation Clause is not well-taken.

-7- Clinton CA2023-05-009

CONCLUSION TO ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

{¶ 22} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Charles'

statements under the excited utterance hearsay exception. We further determine that

J.C. was not deprived of his confrontation rights. J.C.'s first assignment of error is

overruled.

SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

{¶ 23} Assignment of Error No. 2:

THE CLINTON COUNTY JUVENILE COURT VIOLATED J.C.'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW BECAUSE HIS ADJUDICATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16, OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 24} Assignment of Error No. 3:

THE CLINTON COUNTY JUVENILE COURT VIOLATED J.C.'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW BECAUSE HIS ADJUDICATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16, OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 25} In his second and third assignments of error, J.C. argues his adjudication is

based upon insufficient evidence and is against the manifest weight of the evidence. The

standards of review applied in determining whether a juvenile's delinquency adjudication

is supported by sufficient evidence and whether it is against the manifest weight of the

evidence are the same standards as applied in adult criminal cases. In re E.T.H., 12th

Dist. Butler No. CA2018-04-064, 2019-Ohio-79, ¶ 13. The relevant inquiry in reviewing a

claim of insufficient evidence is whether "after viewing the evidence in a light most

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio

-8- Clinton CA2023-05-009

St.3d 101, 2005-Ohio-6046, ¶ 70.

{¶ 26} In considering whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, "a reviewing court must examine the entire record, weigh all of the evidence

and 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 such

a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial

ordered." E.T.H. at ¶ 14. Because a finding that an adjudication of delinquency is

supported by the manifest weight of the evidence also necessarily includes a finding that

it is supported by sufficient evidence, the determination that the adjudication is supported

by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of an appellant's sufficiency

claim. In re I.L.J.F., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-12-258, 2015-Ohio-2823, ¶ 28.

{¶ 27} J.C. was adjudicated delinquent for committing domestic violence in

violation of R.C. 2919.25(C). Pursuant to that statute, "[n]o person, by threat of force,

shall knowingly cause a family or household member to believe that the offender will

cause imminent physical harm to the family or household member." For a violation of

R.C. 2919.25(C), it must be shown that the victim believed the offender would cause him

or her imminent physical harm at the time the incident took place. State v. Hart, 12th Dist.

Warren No. CA2008-06-079, 2009-Ohio-997, ¶ 21.

{¶ 28} J.C. argues the trial court should have adopted his version of events while

discounting Deputy Ellis' testimony and the statements Charles made to her admitted as

excited utterances. However, the trial court is in the best position to weigh the evidence

and evaluate the witnesses' credibility. State v. Salinger, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-

10-208, 2015-Ohio-2821, ¶ 20. We find the state presented evidence to prove each

element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. J.C.'s adjudication was supported by

sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. J.C.'s

-9- Clinton CA2023-05-009

second and third assignments of error are without merit.

{¶ 29} Judgment affirmed.

S. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.

- 10 -