In re D.B.

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 1247

Syllabus

Juvenile court did not err by overruling juvenile's objection to admission of statements made during interviews by law enforcement and polygraph examination. Juvenile court did not err by concluding that initial interview, conducted at a hospital child advocacy center, was not a custodial interrogation, nor by concluding that subsequent telephone interview was not a custodial interrogation. Juvenile court concluded that polygraph examination was a custodial interrogation, but based on the facts of the case, did not err by concluding that juvenile knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights and agreed to participate in polygraph examination. Juvenile court did not err by admitting juvenile's statements regarding penetration of victim because state satisfied corpus delicti requirement related to that charge.