Skip to main content

In re M.H.

Citations

  • 2021 Ohio 1041

Syllabus

DELINQUENCY – JUVENILE – MOTION TO SUPPRESS – ARREST – EVIDENCE – OBSTRUCTING – RESISTING ARREST – ASSAULT – CONFRONTATION CLAUSE – HEARSAY – IMPEACHMENT – RELEVANCE – CUMULATIVE ERROR – PROCEDURE/RULES: The juvenile court did not err in denying the juvenile's motion to suppress evidence where the juvenile argued for a determination of the general issue: Although styled as a motion to suppress, the juvenile was essentially asking the court to dismiss the charges on the ground that the arresting officer used excessive force. The sufficiency of an affirmative defense cannot properly be established through a pretrial motion. The juvenile's delinquency adjudication for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence and was not contrary to the weight of the evidence where the juvenile's overall pattern of behavior was one of resistance. The juvenile's delinquency adjudication for resisting arrest was supported by sufficient evidence and was not contrary to the weight of the evidence: arresting officers had probable cause to believe the juvenile committed assault the officers had engaged in a course of conduct for which an arrest was the obvious and inevitable outcome and the arresting officer did not use excessive force to arrest the juvenile. The juvenile's delinquency adjudications for assault on a peace officer were supported by sufficient evidence and were not contrary to the weight of the evidence where the juvenile knowingly kicked her legs in the officers' direction during her arrest. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of police body-camera footage: directives made by the nontestifying arresting officer were not \testimonial statements\ that implicated the Confrontation Clause and were not \statements\ for purposes of hearsay. The juvenile court did not err in excluding impeachment evidence where the arresting officer was neither a witness at trial nor a hearsay declarant, and thus, not subject to impeachment.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “a question can be an assertion and, therefore, hearsay”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Crouse

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.