[Cite as In re C.S., 2015-Ohio-4531.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

IN RE: : 

 C.S. : CASE NO. CA2015-04-078 

 

 : O P I N I O N 

 11/2/2015 

 : 

 : 

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Case No. JV2014-2211 

Scott N. Blauvelt, 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant, C.S. 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee, state of 

Ohio 

 HENDRICKSON, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, C.S., appeals from a decision of the Butler County Court of Common 

Pleas, Juvenile Division, adjudicating him delinquent for committing aggravated arson. For 

the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

{¶ 2} On November 29, 2014, appellant invited some of his friends over to his 

family's mobile home to hang out and spend the night. Appellant, D.B., T.T., J.R.C., and one 

other boy decided to play a "game" in appellant's grandma's bedroom where they sprayed 
Butler CA2015-04-078 

 - 2 - 

perfume on their clothes, lit the perfume, and then patted out the flame. When D.B. was 

done playing this game, he showered, changed his clothes, and went to sleep in appellant's 

grandma's bedroom. D.B. later awoke with his shorts and boxer shorts on fire, causing 

serious burn injuries to his thighs, groin area, and hand. 

{¶ 3} On December 8, 2014, following an investigation into D.B.'s injuries, Detective 

Jeff Schuster with the Butler County Sheriff's Office filed a complaint alleging appellant, who 

at the time was 14 years old, was a delinquent child for committing acts that, if committed by 

an adult, would constitute aggravated arson, felonious assault, and obstructing official 

business. Appellant entered a denial on all charges, and a delinquency hearing was held on 

April 6, 2015. At the hearing, the state presented testimony from Detective Schuster and his 

fellow officers, Detective Hung Tri Rudolph and Deputy Janee Lambert. Appellant presented 

testimony from the victim, D.B., in his defense. 

{¶ 4} Deputy Lambert testified that she was dispatched to appellant's home around 

4:45 a.m. on November 30, 2014, following reports that a child had set himself on fire with a 

lighter. Upon arriving at the scene, she found D.B. standing outside the home, dressed in 

only a T-shirt. D.B. informed Lambert he was not completely aware of what had happened to 

him; he stated he had fallen asleep and woke up on fire. He also informed Lambert that prior 

to waking up on fire, one of the boys, J.R.C., had taunted him with a lighter. 

{¶ 5} Neither appellant nor T.T. were present when Lambert arrived at the scene. 

She discovered the two boys had gone to T.T.'s home, which was located within the same 

neighborhood. Lambert picked appellant and T.T. up from T.T.'s home and transported them 

back to appellant's home. When Lambert first came into contact with T.T. and appellant, T.T. 

informed her that he ran into the room D.B. was sleeping in when he heard D.B.'s screams 

and helped D.B. by ripping D.B.'s shorts off and stomping out the fire. Appellant told Lambert 

that J.R.C. had been at the home earlier, J.R.C. "continued to try to set [D.B.] on fire with the 
Butler CA2015-04-078 

 - 3 - 

lighter" and "after [J.R.C.] set [D.B.] on fire for the last time, [J.R.C.] jumped out the window 

and took off." Lambert asked T.T. and appellant to provide a written statement about the 

events that had occurred at appellant's home. Appellant gave the following statement: 

Me, [J.R.C.], and a couple of [J.R.C.]'s friends were in the room 

and [J.R.C.] was messing with [D.B.] and I heard my grandma 

[call]. So I walked out there. A couple of minutes later I heard 

[D.B.] screaming. I ran to the bedroom door pushed it open and 

seen him on fire. I said "Mammaw [sic] call 911. [T.T.] help me." 

He ran in the room and [T.T.] put the fire out. And the room was 

empty besides [D.B.]. 

{¶ 6} Detective Schuster testified he arrived at appellant's home sometime after 7:00 

a.m. on November 30, 2014, to investigate the incident. Schuster described the home 

appellant lived in as "a mess." The home had items spread out all over the floor, there was 

an overpowering smell of dog feces, and there various insects crawling throughout the inside 

of the residence. Schuster testified evidence was collected from the home, including D.B.'s 

charred and melted shorts and boxer shorts and a white BIC lighter. The BIC lighter was 

later dusted for fingerprints, but no useable prints were found. 

{¶ 7} Schuster also testified he interviewed appellant on a couple of occasions while 

investigating D.B.'s injuries. On at least one of these occasions, appellant informed Schuster 

that J.R.C. had lit D.B. on fire and then jumped out of a window to get away. As a result of 

his investigation, Schuster filed a complaint charging J.R.C. with aggravated arson and 

felonious assault. Charges against J.R.C. were later withdrawn after additional evidence 

came to light. Among the evidence leading to Schuster's decision to withdraw the complaint 

against J.R.C. was a December 5, 2014 recorded interview between appellant, Detective 

Rudolph, and another detective. 

{¶ 8} Detective Rudolph testified he met with appellant on December 5, 2014, about 

the fire causing D.B.'s injuries. During this interview, appellant initially denied any 

wrongdoing. Appellant claimed that T.T. put perfume on D.B. and lit the perfume before 
Butler CA2015-04-078 

 - 4 - 

appellant put the flame out and left the room. Appellant's story later changed, and he 

admitted to spraying the perfume one time before T.T. lit it. Appellant once again claimed he 

put the flame out before leaving the room. Appellant testified he did not know what 

happened after he left the room. He stated, "I don't know if [T.T.] did it more after I left the 

room of if he just left it alone and it lit back up after I went out of the room." A little later in the 

interview, appellant changed his story yet again. Appellant told Rudolph, "I sprayed it, I lit it, 

and I put it out and walked out of the room." Appellant admitted he had not previously 

disclosed his involvement in the incident because he "didn't want to get in trouble." A video 

recording of appellant's December 5, 2014 interview with Detective Rudolph was entered into 

evidence. Also entered into evidence were photographs of appellant's home, photographs of 

D.B.'s injuries, D.B.'s medical records, D.B.'s burnt shorts and boxer shorts, and a copy of 

appellant's November 30, 2014 written statement. 

{¶ 9} Following the state's presentation of its evidence, appellant called D.B. as a 

witness. D.B. testified he and appellant used to go to school together and were close friends. 

 On the evening before the fire, D.B., appellant, T.T., and one other boy were hanging out in 

appellant's grandma's room. The boys were sitting side by side, with their knees were 

touching. Each boy sprayed perfume on his jean-clad leg before passing the perfume bottle 

to another boy. The boys then lit the perfume on fire before rubbing or wiping out the flame. 

Eventually, the boys stopped this activity, and D.B. showered and changed clothes before 

going to bed in appellant's grandma's room. Before D.B. fell asleep, he noticed that J.R.C. 

was playing with a lighter. A short time after he fell asleep, D.B. woke up with his shorts and 

boxer shorts on fire. Nobody was in the room at that time, but T.T. ran in and helped D.B. 

get the shorts and boxer shorts off. D.B. testified he had no reason to believe appellant was 

the individual who had lit him on fire. 

{¶ 10} After hearing the foregoing evidence, the juvenile court found appellant was not 
Butler CA2015-04-078 

 - 5 - 

a delinquent child with respect to the felonious assault and obstructing official business 

charges. However, the court found appellant was a delinquent child for committing 

aggravated arson. In reaching these determinations, the juvenile court stated the following: 

And we've seen the condition of the trailer, and I mention that, the 

condition and the physical structure of the trailer, mobile home, 

and it's clear that it wouldn't take much to make the whole 

dwelling go up in fire very quickly and very easily. It's a small . . . 

Although there are several different bedrooms, there's a lot of 

debris around, clothes laying around, and the testimony I heard 

indicated that these boys were in this back bedroom and they 

were playing with fire, literally, and in more ways than one. But, 

in going through all the evidence, it would appear that the only 

one of these three (3) offenses which the State was able to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt is one (1). The State was unable to 

prove the elements required, I find, of Felonious Assault, because 

the first element is to knowingly cause serious physical harm to 

another, and in this case the state has failed to do so. We can 

conclude possibly that the lighting of the matches, or excuse me, 

the fire and perfume I heard about, and all that testimony 

suggests that offense did occur of Felonious Assault, but the 

State has failed to prove all of those elements, the required 

elements in that cause. So at this time I'm going to go ahead and 

dismiss the Felonious Assault. I also find the State was unable to 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt the charge of Obstructing 

Official Business, therefore that charge shall be dismissed. 

However, as to the Aggravated Arson, the child's statement, 

statement of witnesses that I've heard today, evidence which was 

admitted in this case, I find that the State has proven each and 

every element of Aggravated Arson in regard to [appellant] and 

find that he is a delinquent child by virtue of that act contrary to 

2909.02 F1, and that is to create knowingly * * * a substantial risk 

of serious physical harm to any person other than the defendant. 

[Appellant], by your very actions you boys were in a bedroom 

where there were bed linens, you were on or near a bed that 

caught fire, something on that bed caught fire, and what we know 

caught fire was those . . . that young man's shorts, they caught 

fire, we know that, we saw them. We saw his boxers, they caught 

on fire. There's no dispute about that either. You made 

statements, you admitted you didn't want to get in any trouble, but 

you also admitted that you did spray the perfume, you lit the per . 

. . you lit it, and you tried to put it out. But the problem you have 

is that you did it. And I don't know if what you specifically did 

caused your friend's horrific injuries or not. * * * But the State 

couldn't prove that you are the one that specifically set his clothes 

on fire, which caused his serious burns. But the State did prove 

that you in essence created by what you did and what you 
Butler CA2015-04-078 

 - 6 - 

admitted doing, and you did it knowingly, a substantial risk of 

serious physical harm to other people too. So for that reason, I 

do find that you're delinquent by virtue of that act. 

{¶ 11} At the dispositional hearing held on April 17, 2015, the juvenile court committed 

appellant to the legal custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a minimum term 

of 12 months. The court then suspended appellant's commitment and placed him on 

intensive probation at a local juvenile rehabilitation center. Appellant was ordered to write an 

apology letter to D.B. and thereafter cease all contact with the victim. 

{¶ 12} Appellant appeals the juvenile court's decision, raising the following assignment 

of error: 

{¶ 13} THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ADJUDICATION 

FOR AGGRAVATED ARSON. 

{¶ 14} In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends his adjudication for 

aggravated arson was not supported by sufficient evidence as the state failed to introduce 

evidence that he knowingly created a substantial risk of serious physical harm to others by 

means of fire. Appellant contends that, at best, the state introduced evidence that he created 

a "speculative or * * * significant risk" of harm by playing with fire given the "unkempt 

condition of the trailer." 

{¶ 15} The standard of review applied in determining whether a juvenile court's finding 

of delinquency is supported by sufficient evidence is the same standard applied in adult 

criminal convictions. In re I.L.J.F., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-12-258, 2015-Ohio-2823, ¶ 

24; In re. K.F., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-08-209, 2010-Ohio-734, ¶ 8. "Sufficiency of the 

evidence is a test of adequacy as to whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a 

verdict as a matter of law." In re I.L.J.F. at ¶ 25, citing State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 

2007-Ohio-2202, ¶ 25. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an 

adjudication of delinquency, "'[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a 
Butler CA2015-04-078 

 - 7 - 

light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.'" In re K.F. at ¶ 9, 

quoting State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113 (1997). 

{¶ 16} Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for conduct which, if committed by an 

adult, would have constituted aggravated arson in violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(1). This 

statute provides that "[n]o person, by means of fire or explosion, shall knowingly * * * [c]reate 

a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person other than the offender." R.C. 

2909.02(A)(1). Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the state's evidence with respect to 

whether he created a "substantial risk of serious physical harm" and whether he acted 

"knowingly." 

{¶ 17} We find appellant forfeited his right to challenge the sufficiency of the state's 

evidence with respect to whether his actions created a "substantial risk of serious physical 

harm." At the commencement of the delinquency hearing, appellant's trial counsel stipulated 

to this element of the offense, stating, "That's correct, Your Honor, that . . . that based on the 

elements in Aggravated Arson we would also stipulate a substantial risk of serious physical 

harm." Appellant now seeks to limit this stipulation. He contends he only intended to 

stipulate to the fact that DB was seriously harmed, and he did not intend to stipulate that 

there was a "substantial risk" that his actions may have caused serious physical harm. 

However, having reviewed the transcript of proceedings, it is apparent that appellant did not 

place any such limitation on his stipulation. Rather, appellant specifically stated, "we would 

also stipulate a substantial risk of serious physical harm." (Emphasis added.) Once 

appellant entered this stipulation, and it was accepted by the juvenile court, it was binding on 

the parties and was a fact deemed adjudicated for purposes of determining the remaining 

issues in the case. In re Avery, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-2000-16, 2001 WL 639664, *1-2 

(June 8, 2001). The juvenile court, therefore, was entitled to rely on appellant's stipulation as 
Butler CA2015-04-078 

 - 8 - 

to this element in finding appellant a delinquent child for committing aggravated arson. See 

id. at *2 ("It is * * * not error for defense counsel to enter into a stipulation of fact, even if it is 

an element of the crime charged, and it is not error for the trial court to have found such facts 

to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt"). 

{¶ 18} Turning to the remaining element challenged, a person acts "knowingly" when 

regardless of purpose, * * * the person is aware that the person's 

conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of 

a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances 

when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist. 

When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an 

element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person 

subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its 

existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious 

purpose to avoid learning that fact. 

R.C. 2901.22(B). 

{¶ 19} Appellant argues the state failed to prove he acted knowingly as the "only fire" 

he was involved with occurred when he was playing with the perfume. He contends he could 

not have been "aware that any small fire he may have set earlier in the evening created a 

substantial risk of serious physical harm based upon the later injuries to D.B." Appellant's 

argument, however, is flawed as the state was only required to prove that appellant 

knowingly created a substantial risk of serious physical harm by means of fire—not that 

appellant actually caused serious physical harm or injury to another by means of fire. See 

R.C. 2909.02(A)(1) and R.C. 2901.01(A)(8).1 See also State v. Eggeman, 3d Dist. Van Wert 

No. 15-04-07, 2004-Ohio-6495, ¶ 14 ("The requisite proof is not dependent upon the actual 

result of the fire but is based upon the risk of harm created by the defendant's actions"). 

{¶ 20} Here, the state presented sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to find the 

"knowingly" element of aggravated arson proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The state 

 

1. Pursuant to R.C. 2901.01(A)(8), a "substantial risk" means "a strong possibility, as contrasted with a remote 

or significant possibility, that a certain result may occur or that certain circumstances may exist." 
Butler CA2015-04-078 

 - 9 - 

presented evidence that appellant admitted to Detective Rudolph that he had sprayed 

perfume and lit it, creating a fire that he had to put out before it spread. Appellant stated, "I 

sprayed it, I lit it, and I put it out and walked out of the room." Appellant's admissions 

demonstrate his awareness that the perfume was flammable and, once lit, resulted in a fire 

that was capable of spreading and causing serious physical harm if it was not immediately 

extinguished. The state, therefore, presented sufficient evidence demonstrating appellant 

acted knowingly when he created a fire inside the mobile home where his friends and his 

grandma were present. 

{¶ 21} Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find appellant's adjudication 

of delinquency for aggravated arson was supported by sufficient evidence. Appellant's sole 

assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 22} Judgment affirmed. 

S. POWELL, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.