[Cite as In re C.C., 2020-Ohio-6896.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE C.C., : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.
:
:
: Case No. 2020 CA 0050
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, Case No. 2020-DEL-0040
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 24, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
GARY BISHOP DARIN AVERY
Prosecuting Attorney 105 Sturges Avenue
Richland County, Ohio Mansfield, Ohio 44903
By: JOSEPH C. SNYDER
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0050 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Appellant, C.C., appeals the decision of the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, finding him delinquent for committing abduction in
violation of R. C. 2905.02 (A)(2); tampering with evidence in violation of R. C.
2921.12(A)(1); carrying a concealed weapon in violation of R. C. 2923.12(A)(2); and,
obstructing official business in a manner that created a risk of physical harm to any person
in violation of R. C. 2921.31(A)/(B). Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} E. C., her brother M. C., and their friends L. J. and A. C. had just left an after
school program and were throwing rocks at the ice on a frozen stream when A.C. fell
through the ice. While the others were helping A.C. from the ice, three people entered a
bridge crossing the creek. One of them was holding a cell phone, as if he was recording
the students, and making comments that E.C. and the others apparently overheard. M. C.
responded that the statements were racist and another of the students, L.J., stated he was
Mexican.
{¶3} In response to the comment made by L.J. that he was Mexican, the person
holding the cell phone passed his phone to one of the others with him, pulled what E.C.
and M.C. described as a gun out of his backpack, and stated “ Oh yeah, well I got
something for Mexicans,” and made an action that the students described as cocking the
gun or moving the slide back, accompanied by a metallic sound. M.C. froze when he saw
the firearm and A.C. said "please don’t shoot” and began to back away. The person with
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0050 3
the gun pointed it at her and asked “where do you think you’re going.” A.C. stopped. She
and her friends did not feel free to move while under the threat of the gun.
{¶4} After approximately thirty seconds the person holding the weapon ran off
with his colleagues and one of the students used another's cell phone to dial 911. The four
friends ran off as well.
{¶5} Patrolman Bryce Edwards was dispatched to the scene and Patrolman
Nicholas Stevens followed behind him. When Edwards arrived he saw two people
matching the description given by the dispatcher and, as he brought his cruiser to stop,
one of them began to run. Patrolman Edwards told the other person to remain where he
was and began chasing the person who had run. He ordered the person to stop, but he
continued to flee. Patrolman Edwards noticed that the fleeing person removed his
backpack, reached inside and then returned the pack to his back. Patrolman Edwards lost
sight of the suspect when he slipped on the ice and fell and when the suspect turned left
and was momentarily obscured by a house. He continued pursuit until other officers arrived
and the fleeing individual, later identified as C.C., was apprehended.
{¶6} The officers searched C.C. and his backpack, but found no firearm.
Patrolman Edwards and other officers searched the path of the chase but found no
weapon.
{¶7} Patrolman Stevens, the second officer on the scene, approached the
person who was walking with C.C. when Patrolman Edwards arrived, identified him as
Labron Hamner, determined he was not armed, and placed him in the cruiser while he
assisted Patrolman Edwards. In an exchange between he and Patrolman Stevens, Mr.
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0050 4
Hamner confirmed that C.C. was carrying a gun in his backpack and that M.C.’s and E.C.’s
statements that C.C. had threatened them and their friends were accurate.
{¶8} On March 15, 2020, a child found and discharged a firearm near where C.C.
was apprehended. Officer Stevens searched the Police Department database using the
addresses where the gun was located and found no police calls reporting violent incidents
or use of a firearm where the gun was found.
{¶9} On January 20, 2020 the state filed a complaint alleging C.C. was
delinquent for committing abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2) a felony of the third
degree if committed by an adult; tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)
a felony of the third degree if committed by an adult; one count of carrying a concealed
weapon in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) a felony of the fourth degree if committed by an
adult; four counts of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) misdemeanors
of the first degree if committed by an adult and one count of obstructing official business
in violation of R.C. 2921.31 (A), a misdemeanor of the second if committed by an adult.
The last count was amended prior to trial to make the obstructing official business count a
fifth degree felony.
{¶10} The matter was presented to the Juvenile Division of the Court of Common
Pleas on June 10, 2020. On June 17, 2020, the court issued a decision that C.C. had
committed the offenses as alleged except the carrying concealed weapon charge, which
was reduced to a misdemeanor of the third degree if committed by an adult. He was
sentenced to a suspended Department of Youth Services commitment on several of the
counts and ordered to serve probation, including completion of a treatment program at the
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0050 5
Multi-County Juvenile Attention System in Massillon, Ohio. Appellant filed a notice of
appeal and submitted four assignments of error:
{¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT
COMMITTED ABDUCTION IN VIOLATION OF R.C.2905.02(A)(2).”
{¶12} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT
COMMITTED TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2921.12(A)(1).”
{¶13} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT
CARRIED A CONCEALED WEAPON IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2923.12(A)(2).”
{¶14} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT
OBSTRUCTED OFFICIAL BUSINESS IN A MANNER THAT CREATED A RISK OF
PHYSICAL HARM TO ANY PERSON IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2921.31 (A) AND (B).”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶15} C.C. describes four assignments of error in which he asserts that the record
contains insufficient evidence to support the finding of delinquency for the charges
described in the assignments. We will review the record for the sufficiency of evidence for
all assignments.
{¶16} We apply the same standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence in
juvenile delinquency adjudications as for adult criminal defendants. In re T.R., 5th Dist.
Guernsey No. 10CA000002, 2010-Ohio-4419, ¶ 11. An appellate court's function when
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine 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.
Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus (1991).
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0050 6
I.
{¶17} In the first assignment of error, C.C. contends the record contains
insufficient evidence to find that he committed abduction because it lacks evidence of a
restraint of liberty. C.C. argues that he did not physically restrain any of the students, and
did not instruct them to remain still.
{¶18} C.C. was charged with abduction, a violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2) which
states "No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly *** [b]y force or threat,
restrain the liberty of another person under circumstances that create a risk of physical
harm to the victim or place the other person in fear." C.C. pointed what E.C. and M.C.
identified as a gun in their direction while directing a comment to L.J. that he "had
something for a Mexican" and, when A.C. began backing away, asking "where do you
think you’re going?" Those statements, taken in context with the circumstances, support a
finding that C.C. intended to cause fear and restrict the liberty of the students. The
students testified that they were frightened and remained motionless. A.C. plead with C.C.
to not shoot, E.C. called 911 and the four hurried from the scene. C.C. did not physically
touch or restrain the students and did not order them to remain still, but his actions
conveyed the threat that the students were not free to move in a manner sufficient to fulfill
the elements of the statute regarding the use of force or threat. “Clearly, holding someone
at gunpoint could be perceived to be a ‘force or threat.’ ” State v. Banks, 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 03AP-1286, 2004-Ohio-6522, ¶ 27.
{¶19} Construing the facts most favorably to the prosecution, we find sufficient
evidence to support the finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that C.C. violated R.C.
2905.02(A)(2) and deny the first assignment of error.
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0050 7
II.
{¶20} C.C. next argues that the charge of tampering with evidence fails because
the record contains no evidence that he disposed of a firearm as he ran from Patrolman
Edwards.
{¶21} Revised Code 2921.12(A)(1) prohibits “alter[ing], destroy[ing], conceal[ing],
or remov[ing] any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability
as evidence in such proceeding or investigation” if that person knows “that an official
proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted.” We
have reviewed the record in this case and, after viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, we find that any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of tampering with evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶22} E.C. and M.C. identified C.C. as the person with the firearm at the scene
and further, that he retrieved it from his backpack before pointing it at them. C.C. fled
when Patrolman Edwards approached and, during the chase, he removed his backpack,
reached into it and replaced his backpack. Officer Edwards did not see C.C. throw a
firearm, but he did lose visual contact on two occasions. Finally, in response to a question
from C.C.'s counsel, Officer Stevens testified that Labron Hamner, the person who was
with C.C. that day, confirmed that C.C. had a firearm and that Hamner’s statements
matched the description of events provided by the victims, providing further support for a
conclusion that C.C. possessed a firearm and later disposed of it.
{¶23} Finally, a handgun was found in the area of the chase fifty-three days later.
While the discovery of this firearm is far from conclusive, it is a relevant piece of evidence
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0050 8
that, when combined with the facts presented to the court, serves to confirm that there was
sufficient evidence before the court to support a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
C.C. had disposed of a weapon and committed the offense of tampering with evidence
{¶24} The second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶25} In his third assignment of error, C.C. contends the evidence did not support
a conviction for a violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), carrying a concealed weapon, because
there was no evidence that the gun was operable. And, while a gun was recovered fifty-
three days later, the record fails to demonstrate that this gun was the firearm brandished
by C.C.
{¶26} The witnesses testified that C.C. pulled the firearm from inside a backpack,
so it was clearly concealed. Officer Stevens testified that Hamner confirmed that C.C. was
carrying a gun and that Hamner’s statement was consistent with the statements of the
victims. "Concerning operability, “the trier of fact may rely upon circumstantial evidence,
including, but not limited to, the representations and actions of the individual exercising
control over the firearm.” R.C. 2923.11(B)(2). State v. Bolton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 96385, 2012-Ohio-169, ¶ 86. The Supreme Court of Ohio addressed this issue in
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) where it
held that "given our holdings in Dixon and Murphy, supra, it should be abundantly clear
that where an individual brandishes a gun and implicitly but not expressly threatens to
discharge the firearm at the time of the offense, the threat can be sufficient to satisfy the
state's burden of proving that the firearm was operable or capable of being readily
rendered operable." We are bound to follow the precedent in Thompkins, so we find that
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0050 9
the actions of C.C. and the parties involved and the testimony of the witnesses provide
sufficient evidence to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that C.C. was carrying
a concealed weapon in violation of R.C. 2923 .12(A)(2).
IV.
{¶27} In his fourth assignment of error, C.C. contends there was insufficient
evidence to support a finding that he obstructed official business in violation of R.C.
2921.31(A) and (B). The charge is based upon Patrolman Edwards fall on the ice while in
pursuit of C.C. C.C. claims the record contains no evidence that would put him on notice
of the risk to the officer of falling on the ice and that it was the negligence of Patrolman
Edwards and not C.C. that resulted in his fall.
{¶28} We addressed this issue in In re E.C., 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2012-
0048, 2013-Ohio-2584, where the pursuing officer slipped and fell on ice when he
attempted to capture the fleeing E.C. We found that “when Appellant was attempting to
flee he caused a ‘risk of physical harm’ ” to the pursuing deputy and when the deputy
"slipped on the ice and fell to the ground as he was attempting to capture and restrain
Appellant, there was a significant possibility that any of the deputies could have suffered
physical harm that could result in pain." Id. At ¶ 44. C.C. was certainly aware that the
weather was cold enough to create ice, having recently crossed a bridge over a frozen
stream and it was C.C.’s fleeing the scene, ignoring the command to stop, that triggered
the officer’s duty to pursue.
{¶29} C.C. contends the officer had no duty to pursue C.C. or that he was
negligent in doing so. We reject that contention and instead conclude that “[f]ailure, on
the part of a police officer, to pursue an individual [who had allegedly brandished a firearm
Richland County, Case No. 2020 CA 0050 10
at others] could constitute neglect of a police officer's sworn duties to protect the public.”
Vince v. City of Canton, 5th Dist. Stark No. 1997CA00299, 1998 WL 525570, *5.
Patrolman Edwards was fulfilling his sworn duty to protect the public from a potentially
dangerous suspect as he pursued C.C..
{¶30} We find sufficient evidence to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt
of a violation of R.C. 2921.3l(A) and (B). Appellant’s fourth assignment of error is denied.
{¶31} The decision of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, Earle, J. concur.