[Cite as In re N.D., 2016-Ohio-7620.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

IN RE: N.D. 

 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-160206 

TRIAL NO. 14-7059X 

 O P I N I O N.

 

 

Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 4, 2016 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alex Scott Havlin, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee State of Ohio,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Julie Kahrs Nessler, 

Assistant Public Defender, for Appellant N.D. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

STAUTBERG, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant N.D. appeals the judgment of the trial court adopting the 

decision of the magistrate, which adjudicated N.D. delinquent for committing acts 

that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted aggravated arson, and entered 

a disposition. N.D. raises two assignments of error: (1) the juvenile court erred in 

dismissing N.D.’s December 22, 2014 objections to the magistrate’s decision, and (2) 

N.D.’s adjudication as delinquent was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

We sustain N.D.’s first assignment of error, reverse the judgment of the trial court, 

and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

{¶2} On August 16, 2014, while D.R. was playing tag with three of his 

cousins at a friend’s home, someone threw a flammable material onto D.R.’s shirt 

and set him on fire. D.I., D.R.’s 14-year-old cousin, helped extinguish the fire. The 

boys then went back to D.I.’s house, where D.I. placed D.R. in a cold shower and then 

sent him to bed. Although there were adults at home, neither D.I. nor D.R. informed 

the adults about the incident. 

{¶3} The next morning, D.R. told his mother that his back was “messed up.” 

After looking at D.R.’s injuries, D.R.’s mother informed the rest of the family of the 

incident. The family searched the neighborhood for a tall, dark-skinned, “guy with 

[an] afro [who] had on cargo pants and a shirt,” but was unsuccessful. 

{¶4} A family member eventually called the police. The police instructed 

D.R.’s mother to take D.R. to the hospital. At the hospital, a doctor diagnosed D.R. 

with second-degree burns to his back and left ear. 

{¶5} D.R.’s family members searched the neighborhood again for the 

culprit. The family found N.D. in the neighborhood, and accused him of burning 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3 

D.R. A family member then informed D.R. and D.R.’s mother that they had found 

the culprit, and then called the police. D.R. and his mother arrived at the scene, and 

the police arrived soon thereafter. D.I. positively identified N.D. as the person who 

had committed the offense. D.R. told the officer that he had seen N.D. nearby the 

day of the offense. N.D. denied burning D.R. and told the officer that he was 

elsewhere at the time of the offense. The officer arrested N.D. 

{¶6} On August 17, 2014, a delinquency complaint was filed against N.D. for 

committing acts that, had N.D. been an adult, would have constituted aggravated 

arson, in violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(1). The case proceeded to trial on October 15, 

2014, and December 10, 2014. Four witnesses, including D.R., D.I., D.R.’s mother, 

and the arresting officer, testified on behalf of the state. On December 17, 2014, the 

magistrate issued a decision adjudicating N.D. delinquent. 

{¶7} On December 22, 2014, N.D. filed objections to the magistrate’s 

decision. N.D. did not appear at the February 10, 2015 hearing on the objections. 

Defense counsel asked for a continuance, or in the alternative, to proceed with 

objections and waive N.D.’s appearance. The trial court continued the matter to 

February 23, 2015. N.D. again failed to appear. On the record, the trial court 

dismissed the objections “for failure to forward the objection.” In the entry, the court 

stated, “Upon consideration and review, objection dismissed.” 

{¶8} On June 3, 2015, the magistrate issued an order regarding N.D’s 

disposition. N.D. moved to dismiss the matter under Juv.R. 29, as the magistrate’s 

order was not an effective disposition. N.D. asked the magistrate to dismiss the 

matter or issue a decision. On November 4, 2015, the magistrate issued a decision 

that “correct[ed], nunc pro tunc, the entry dated June 3, 2015” that was mistakenly 

styled an order and not a decision. N.D. filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

which the trial court overruled after a hearing. The trial court, in an entry on 

December 22, 2015, adopted the decision of the magistrate. This appeal followed. 

{¶9} In his first assignment of error, N.D. asserts that the juvenile court 

erred in dismissing his December 22, 2014 objections to the magistrate’s decision. 

We agree. 

{¶10} Pursuant to Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d), if objections to a magistrate’s decision 

are timely filed, the court shall rule on those objections. (Emphasis added.) “In 

ruling on objections, the court must undertake an independent review as to the 

objected matters to ensure that the magistrate properly determined the factual issues 

and appropriately applied the law.” In re K.G., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130220, 

2014-Ohio-4495, ¶ 4, citing Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d), and Madeline M. v. Schlau, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-130361, 2014-Ohio-468. 

{¶11} Here, the trial court dismissed N.D.’s objections for his failure to 

appear at the hearings on objections, despite his counsel being present for both 

hearings. A review of the record demonstrates that N.D.’s failure to appear at the 

objections hearings were the reasons for the dismissal.

{¶12} The trial court’s entry dismissing N.D’s objections without ruling on 

them is contrary to Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d). Consequently, we hold that the trial court 

erred when it dismissed N.D.’s objections rather than conducting an independent 

review and ruling on the objected matters. See In re K.G. at ¶ 5. Accordingly, we 

sustain N.D.’s first assignment of error. 

{¶13} In his second assignment of error, N.D. contends that his adjudication 

as delinquent was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Our resolution of his 

first assignment of error renders this assignment of error moot, and we, therefore, 

decline to address it. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

{¶14} The trial court’s judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the 

trial court to rule on N.D.’s December 22, 2014 objections to the magistrate’s 

decision pursuant to Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d). 

Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 

HENDON, P.J., and CUNNINGHAM, J., concur.

Please note: 

 This court has recorded its own entry this date.