[Cite as In re T.R., 2011-Ohio-5989.]

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 CLARK COUNTY 

: 

IN THE MATTER OF: : Appellate Case No. 2011-CA-44 

: 

T. R. : Trial Court Case No. 20110142 

: 

: 

: (Juvenile Appeal from 

: (Common Pleas Court) 

: 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 18th day of November, 2011. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

ANDREW R. PICEK, Atty. Reg. #0082121, Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East 

Columbia Street, 4th Floor, Post Office Box 1608, Springfield, Ohio 45501 

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

MOLLY M. WOLLET, Atty. Reg. #0085865, 147 High Street, Dayton, Ohio 45403 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

FAIN, J. 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant T.R. appeals from his adjudication of delinquency 

for Illegally Manufacturing or Processing Explosives. T.R. contends that the State 

failed to present evidence sufficient to support the adjudication. We conclude that 

the State failed to present evidence sufficient to support a finding that T.R. 

manufactured or processed an explosive. Accordingly, the judgment of the Juvenile 

Court is Reversed and the adjudication of delinquency by reason of violating R.C. 
2

2923.17(B) is Vacated. 

I 

{¶ 2} T.R.. and three other minors were arrested by the Springfield Police 

and charged with being delinquent by reason of Illegally Manufacturing or Processing 

Explosives, in violation of R.C. 2923.17(B), and Inducing Panic, in violation of R.C. 

2917.31(A)(3). The charges stemmed from an incident at the Family Dollar store in 

Springfield during which, the State alleged, the boys set off two bottle bombs. 

{¶ 3} Three of the juveniles – T.R., W.P., and S.N. – denied the delinquency 

charges. At trial, the State presented testimony from two Family Dollar Store clerks, 

a Springfield Police Sergeant, and a Springfield Fire Department Lieutenant. 

{¶ 4} Cristi Paris testified that she had been working at the Family Dollar 

Store on January 30, when the four juvenile boys walked into the store. She 

testified that the one boy (who was not a part of the trial below) attempted to 

purchase some spray paint, but was informed that he could not do so because he 

was underage. She testified that he then purchased some toilet bowl cleaner and 

some aluminum foil. Paris testified that the boy claimed, upon questioning, that he 

was making the purchase for his mother. Paris testified that W.P. purchased some 

candy and that S.N. and T.R. had remained in the front of the store during the 

transactions. 

{¶ 5} Paris testified that the boys left the store together and that five or ten 

minutes later she observed them running. Specifically, Paris testified that she saw 

the boy who had purchased the toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum foil “running 
3

towards the door, throwing a bottle of stuff.” She testified that, at the same time, she 

observed the other three boys running toward the bank. According to Paris, the 

bottle that had been thrown at the front door began to expand. She testified that a 

patron of the store called the police, who evacuated the building while the fire 

department dealt with the bottle. 

{¶ 6} Tina Lynch also testified. Lynch was working as assistant manager at 

Family Dollar on the date of the incident. Her testimony corroborated that of Paris 

with regard to the purchases made. However, Lynch further testified that after the 

boys left the store, she was in the back of the store unloading stock when she heard 

“a lot of laughter” coming from the area of the store’s outdoor loading dock. When 

she looked out of the door window, she observed the four boys on the loading area. 

Lynch testified that she continued to carry her stock into the main area of the store 

when she observed Paris run out the front door of the store and tell the boys to “get 

away from the store and stop throwing stuff.” 

{¶ 7} Springfield Police Sergeant Kimberly Standley testified that when she 

responded to the scene she observed a plastic bottle filled with liquid. She testified 

that the bottle was expanding. Standley testified that she went into the store and 

spoke with the clerks after which she went to the back of the building where she 

observed “a bottle that had exploded [on the loading dock], a plastic bottle that had 

exploded. There was – the wind was very strong that day, and there was still little 

balls of aluminum foil on the loading dock area, and there was a splatter of a liquid 

substance on the area and on the door. There was an odor of a chemical in the air 

still.” 
4

{¶ 8} Standley testified that she took one of the bottles as evidence and that 

she concluded her investigation. As she was driving back to her office, Standley 

observed the four boys and sent out a radio bulletin. The boys were subsequently 

arrested by another officer. 

{¶ 9} Springfield Fire Department Lieutenant, Robert Smith, testified that he 

responded to the scene. He testified that he is certified in the containment of 

hazardous materials. Smith testified he observed the bottle expanding and decided 

to use “scene tape” to secure the area around the bottle. Smith then put on 

protective gear and used an eight foot “pike pole” to pierce the bottle. 

{¶ 10} Smith testified that in his experience a bottle bomb is made by “mixing 

chemicals that produce another component and gas.” He further testified that he 

believed that the bottle contained a “hazardous material.” However, he admitted on 

cross-examination that he does not have a degree in chemistry and he is not an 

expert in chemistry. Smith testified that he did not test the substance in the bottle.1

 

Smith testified that combining baking soda and vinegar can “cause a gas production 

and it would cause the same effect inside the bottle.” Finally, Smith testified that he 

believed he classified the bottle as a “bomb, explosive device” on his official report. 

But Smith did not testify that the bottle was, in fact, a bomb or explosive device, 

merely that he recorded it that way on his report. 

{¶ 11} All three boys testified that they were not involved with the purchase of 

the toilet cleaner and aluminum foil. They testified that the fourth boy pulled a 

 1

 Nor is there any evidence that the substance from either bottle was tested by anyone else. 
5

plastic bottle out of the trash and put the bomb together. According to the boys, 

they did not know it was a bottle bomb and the fourth boy merely told them that the 

bottle would make a loud noise. The boys testified that they ran away after the first 

bottle exploded and that the fourth boy grabbed another bottle that he put together 

and threw at the front door of the store. 

{¶ 12} Following trial, the Juvenile Court dismissed the charge of Inducing 

Panic, but found T.R. delinquent for violating R.C. 2923.17(B). T.R. appeals. 

{¶ 13} II 

{¶ 14} The sole assignment of error asserted by T.R. is as follows: 

{¶ 15} “THE STATE OF OHIO FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A 

REASONABLE DOUBT THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A 

DANGEROUS ORDNANCE.” 

{¶ 16} T.R. contends that the evidence presented by the State was not 

sufficient to sustain the adjudication of delinquency. 

{¶ 17} R.C. 2923.17(B), which proscribes illegally manufacturing or processing 

explosives, provides as follows: 

{¶ 18} “No person shall manufacture or process an explosive at any location in 

this state unless the person first has been issued a license, certificate of registration, 

or permit to do so from a fire official of a political subdivision of this state or from the 

office of the fire marshal.” 

{¶ 19} “Explosive” is defined in R.C. 2923.11(M) as “any chemical compound, 

mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by 
6

explosion. ‘Explosive’ includes all materials that have been classified as division 1.1, 

division 1.2, division 1. 3, or division 1.4 explosives by the United States department 

of transportation in its regulations and includes, but is not limited to, dynamite, black 

powder, pellet powders, initiating explosives, blasting caps, electric blasting caps, 

safety fuses, fuse igniters, squibs, cordeau detonant fuses, instantaneous fuses, and 

igniter cords and igniters. ‘Explosive’ does not include ‘fireworks,’ as defined in 

section 3743.01 of the Revised Code, or any substance or material otherwise 

meeting the definition of explosive set forth in this section that is manufactured, sold, 

possessed, transported, stored, or used in any activity described in section 3743.80 

of the Revised Code, provided the activity is conducted in accordance with all 

applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including, but not limited to, the provisions of 

section 3743.80 of the Revised Code and the rules of the fire marshal adopted 

pursuant to section 3737.82 of the Revised Code.”2

{¶ 20} “Fireworks” are defined as any “composition or device prepared for the 

purpose of producing a visible or an audible effect by combustion, deflagration, or 

detonation, except ordinary matches and except as provided in section 3743.80 of 

the Revised Code.” R.C. 3743.01(F). 

{¶ 21} An argument based on the sufficiency of the evidence challenges 

whether the State presented adequate evidence on each element of the offense to 

allow the case to go to the jury or to sustain the verdict as a matter of law. State v. 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio-52. “An appellate court's function 

 2

 R.C. 2923.11(M) was amended in 2008; all the cases cited by the parties involve offenses that occurred prior to the amendment. 
7

when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to 

examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if 

believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, paragraph two of the 

syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated 

in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102, 1997-Ohio-355. 

{¶ 22} In this case no one, expert or otherwise, testified that the substances in 

the bottle constituted an explosive as that term is defined by the statute. There is 

nothing to indicate that toilet bowl cleaner or aluminum foil, by themselves, constitute 

an explosive. Nor is there any evidence in this record that combining the two 

substances creates an explosive. It is not clear whether the ingredients must be 

placed in a plastic bottle, as was done here, in order to create the explosive. In 

short, the State failed to present evidence upon which to base a finding that the 

substance, or the substance when placed into a plastic bottle, constituted an 

explosive. 

{¶ 23} A bottle bomb consisting of a two-liter soda pop bottle into which toilet 

bowl cleaner (containing hydrochloric acid) and aluminum foil were placed, when 

sealed and shaken, was held to constitute an explosive device, for purposes of R.C. 

2923.11(H), in In re Travis (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 684, 690. But in that case there 

was testimony in the record that the bottle could explode, and that “the explosion of 

such a device can cause physical harm to persons or property.” Id. at 687 and 690. 

There was no comparable testimony in the case before us. 

{¶ 24} Judicial notice can only be taken of a fact “not subject to reasonable 
8

dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the 

trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources 

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Evid. R. 201(B). By that 

standard, the explosive nature of a bottle into which toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum 

foil has been inserted cannot be the subject of judicial notice. Furthermore, the 

taking of judicial notice requires notice to the party and an opportunity to be heard. 

Evid. R. 201(E). T.R. was not provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard 

with respect to judicial notice being taken of the explosive nature of the “bottle 

bombs” in this case. 

{¶ 25} We conclude that the State failed to present evidence sufficient to 

prove that T.R. manufactured or processed an explosive. T.R.’s sole assignment of 

error is sustained. 

{¶ 26} III 

{¶ 27} T.R.’s sole assignment of error having been sustained, the judgment of 

the trial court is Reversed and Vacated. 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

DONOVAN and FROELICH, JJ., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Andrew R. Picek 

Molly M. Wollet 

Hon. Joseph N. Monnin