[Cite as In re A.D., 2016-Ohio-109.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 102854

IN RE: A.D. 

A Minor Child

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Juvenile Division 

Case No. DL-14-106876 

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and Kilbane, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 14, 2016 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

Stephen McGowan 

19211 Westbrooke Lane 

Strongsville, Ohio 44149 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

For CCDCFS

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Anna Woods 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center, 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} A.D. appeals the finding of delinquency based on her violation of R.C. 

2921.13(A)(3) by providing false information for the purpose of misleading a public 

official. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

{¶2} In May 2014, A.D. was investigated by school officials, including the 

assistant principal and the school safety officer. As part of the investigation, the assistant 

principal and the officer asked A.D. if she had driven to school that day. She claimed 

she had not. Everyone walked to a car belonging to A.D.’s family, parked adjacent to the 

school’s property. Because the car was parked on the public streets, local police were 

dispatched and on scene. Inside the car, and plainly visible, was a purse with a pack of 

cigarettes on top. A.D. initially claimed the purse was hers. The officials went to 

search the bag, noting that a city ordinance prohibited minors from possessing cigarettes. 

A.D. resisted and tried to snatch the purse back from the officers. She then claimed the 

purse was actually her mother’s. The officials found A.D.’s identification in the purse. 

A.D.’s mother and father arrived to the scene together in another vehicle. 

{¶3} After an adjudicatory hearing, A.D. was found to be delinquent for providing 

false information to the school officials and police officers. The magistrate found, as 

adopted by the trial court, that the state proved by inference that A.D. drove to school on 

the day in question, and tried to cover up possession of the purse only after the officials 

indicated they intended to search it. As the magistrate concluded, the facts that the car 

was parked immediately adjacent to the school and that A.D.’s parents arrived together in 
another vehicle during the search of A.D.’s purse, supported the inference that A.D. 

actually drove to school and presented false information to the public officials. A.D. 

maintained that she had not technically presented untruths because the car was not on the 

school’s property, so she did not drive to school that day, and also that the purse was her 

mother’s, although A.D. used it. 

{¶4} A.D. filed objections to the magistrate’s findings of fact, but failed to provide 

a transcript of the proceedings to the trial court. The trial court overruled the objections, 

noting the lack of the transcript, and A.D. timely appealed. 

{¶5} In her first assignment of error, A.D. claims that the finding of delinquency is 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. When reviewing a claim challenging the 

manifest weight of the evidence, the court, reviewing the entire record, must weigh the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and 

determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its 

way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be 

reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 

1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541. 

{¶6} We cannot review the transcript to determine whether the delinquency finding 

is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii) provides that 

An objection to a factual finding, whether or not specifically designated as a 

finding of fact under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(a)(ii), shall be supported by a 

transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that 
finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available. 

In light of the failure to adequately support the objections to the magistrate’s findings of 

fact, A.D. deprived the trial court of the opportunity to correct any alleged error in the 

first instance. She cannot challenge the decision as being against the manifest weight of 

the evidence for the first time on appeal. In re K.X., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-949, 

2005-Ohio-3791, ¶ 13. Although A.D. supplemented the record on appeal with that 

transcript, appellate courts are precluded from considering it. Id., citing State ex rel. 

Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 654 N.E.2d 1254 (1995). In 

Duncan, the Ohio Supreme Court held that when a transcript of the proceedings before 

the magistrate is not filed with the trial court prior to the ruling on the objections, the 

appellate court is “precluded from considering the transcript of the hearing submitted with 

the appellate record.” Without considering the transcript, this court is unable to review 

the testimony to consider the witnesses’ credibility. A.D.’s first assignment of error is 

overruled. The trial court did not err by adopting the magistrate’s decision. 

{¶7} In her second assignment of error, A.D. claims the magistrate improperly 

considered evidence that A.D. possessed cigarettes, an illegal act for a 17-year-old 

pursuant to a local ordinance, and possessed marijuana. A.D. claims that possession of 

both is evidence of other crimes for the purposes of Evid.R. 404(B). The trial court has 

broad discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence, and unless it has clearly 

abused its discretion and the defendant has been materially prejudiced thereby, an 

appellate court should be slow to interfere. State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 
2006-Ohio-160, 840 N.E.2d 1032, ¶ 122. 

{¶8} We overrule A.D.’s second and final assignment of error. The magistrate, in 

her decision, noted that the evidence of marijuana was not considered upon the agreement 

of both parties, and the evidence of A.D.’s possession of cigarettes was deemed to be the 

motive behind her falsification. Evid.R. 404(B) provides that evidence of other crimes, 

wrongs, or acts is admissible to prove motive. See, e.g., State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio 

St.3d 73, 2014-Ohio-1966, 15 N.E.3d 818, ¶ 68. The magistrate’s legal pronouncement 

was a correct statement of law. Accordingly, A.D.’s second assignment of error is 

overruled. 

{¶9} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court, juvenile division, to carry this judgment into execution. The finding of 

delinquency having been affirmed, any bail or stay of execution pending appeal is 

terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR