Skip to main content

In re S.J.

Citations

  • 2023 Ohio 3441

Syllabus

OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – FIRST AMENDMENT – RESISTING ARREST – DISORDERLY CONDUCT – ESCAPE – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY: The juvenile court erred in adjudicating the juvenile delinquent for obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and escape, where the adjudications were based on insufficient evidence. [But see DISSENT: The adjudications for obstruction of official business, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct were supported by sufficient evidence.] Where the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the elements of an affirmative act, purpose, or hampering or impeding an officer's official duties, there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile's delinquency adjudication for obstruction of official business. [But see DISSENT: The juvenile's adjudication for obstruction of official business was supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence established the juvenile was instructed by the officer to get out of the street and failed to comply with the instruction by continuing to walk in the street and exhibiting uncooperative behavior, impeding the officer from further assisting the other officers.] Where there was no lawful arrest and where the juvenile could not have understood she was being placed under arrest, her adjudication of delinquency for resisting arrest is not supported by sufficient evidence. [But see DISSENT: The juvenile's adjudication for resisting arrest was supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence established that while the juvenile was being arrested for obstructing official business, the juvenile struggled with the officers, refused requests to place her hands behind her back, and the officer was required to spray a chemical irritant to effectuate the arrest.] The juvenile's adjudication of delinquency for disorderly conduct was not supported by sufficient evidence, where she was not hindering or preventing movement on a public street, her conduct served a lawful a

Judges: Kinsley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

22 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.