FIRST DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

        

THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT.  THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI.  INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

 

DATE: Wednesday, September 4, 2024

CAPTION: IN RE: D.B. 

APPEAL NOS.: C-240076, C-240077, C-240078

TRIAL NOS.: 23-0085-01-Z, 23-0085-02-Z, 23-0085-03-Z

KEY WORDS: JUVENILE – DELINQUENCY – FELONIOUS ASSAULT – IDENTITY – DISCHARGE OF A FIREMARM – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY

SUMMARY:The juvenile court’s adjudications of defendant juvenile as delinquent of two counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and one count of discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) were based on insufficient evidence because the State failed to present evidence that established the identity of the juvenile as the shooter. 

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED 

JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR.

 

CAPTION: STATE V. DANIELS

APPEAL NO.: C-240085

TRIAL NO.: B-2300422

KEY WORDS: MOTION TO SUPPRESS – TRAFFIC STOP 

SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered from defendant’s vehicle following a traffic stop, because police officers had probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion to conduct defendant’s traffic stop: the police officer testified unequivocally that defendant had failed to use a signal when moving from the right lane to the left lane in violation of Cincinnati Mun.Code 506-80, and the rear and side windows of defendant’s vehicle were heavily tinted. 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., CONCUR.