[Cite as In re T.S., 2021-Ohio-1889.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

IN RE: T.S. : 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-200267

TRIAL NO. 20-881Z 

 

 

 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: June 4, 2021 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary Stier, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellant State of Ohio, 

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Jessica Moss, Assistant 

Public Defender, for Appellee T.S. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

2

MYERS, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} In this appeal, the state of Ohio challenges the decision of the juvenile 

court dismissing a delinquency action against appellee T.S. The complaint alleged 

that when he was 17 years old, T.S. engaged in behavior that would have constituted 

felonious assault and two firearm specifications if he had been an adult. 

{¶2} The state filed a motion for relinquishment of jurisdiction. Following a 

hearing, the juvenile court determined that no probable cause existed to believe that 

T.S. committed the offenses and dismissed the complaint. 

{¶3} The state now appeals. Because the state presented sufficient evidence 

of probable cause, we reverse the juvenile court’s judgment.

The Evidence at the Bindover Hearing 

{¶4} At the bindover hearing, Cincinnati Police Detective Robert Bohl 

testified that on February 17, 2020, he was called to investigate a shooting that 

occurred on Hopple Street in Cincinnati. He interviewed T.S., who had been injured 

in the shooting. According to the detective:

I just asked [T.S.] what happened. He stated that he was driving a car 

on Hopple Street when a car pulled up behind him. Shots were fired. 

He got out and ran. As he was running, he admitted that he was 

shooting back at them as well. 

T.S. stated that he used a Glock gun. T.S. reported that after he was shot, he ditched 

the gun before running into a Wendy’s restaurant. 

{¶5} Meanwhile, a man named Terrell Grigsby called the police to report 

that he had been involved in a shootout. When Detective Bohl interviewed him, 

Grigsby stated that the previous night, two unknown men had beaten him up and 

had stolen his Glock gun and his vehicle. Grigbsy said that he later was with William 

Cook when they saw Grigsby’s stolen vehicle driving on Hopple Street, so they pulled 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

3 

up behind it and yelled at the driver to get out of the vehicle. When the driver 

refused, Grigsby pulled out his rifle and fired one round into the air to intimidate 

him. Grigsby said that the driver got out of the vehicle and started shooting back at 

him. According to the detective, Grigsby said that “[w]hen the driver of the vehicle, 

[T.S.], got out and started shooting back, that’s when Mr. Cook got out of the vehicle 

and started returning fire as well.” 

{¶6} Detective Bohl also interviewed William Cook who stated that he had 

been with Grigsby when they saw the stolen vehicle and pulled up behind it. Cook 

reported that Grigsby pulled out a rifle and fired three shots into the air. Then the 

driver of the stolen vehicle got out and started shooting, so Cook returned fire with 

his 9 mm gun.

{¶7} T.S. sustained at least one gunshot wound in the shooting, but neither 

Cook nor Grigsby was injured. 

{¶8} Police recovered a 40-caliber Glock gun from the Wendy’s restaurant. 

The gun was test-fired and found to be operable. Police found multiple gun shell 

casings scattered on the ground at the crime scene, including 9 mm and 7.62-caliber 

casings, which matched the guns that Cook and Grigsby fired. Police recovered no 

40-caliber casings matching the Glock gun fired by T.S. Detective Bohl explained:

We didn’t recover any [40-caliber] casings, but, I mean, by the time we 

got there, cars were driving all over the place. It was quite a large 

crime scene. We canvassed the area, didn’t find any.

{¶9} At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court placed of record an 

entry stating, “Evidence presented. The evidence is insufficient. Probable cause not 

found.” After finding no probable cause, the juvenile court dismissed the complaint. 

This appeal followed.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

4

Probable Cause 

{¶10} In a single assignment of error, the state argues that the juvenile court 

erred by dismissing the complaint. The state contends that the court erroneously 

found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause.

{¶11} R.C. 2152.12(B) governs discretionary bindovers. It allows the juvenile 

court to transfer to the common pleas court a case alleging a juvenile has committed 

an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult if the juvenile court finds that 

(1) the child was 14 or older at the time of the charged offense, (2) probable cause 

exists that the juvenile committed the charged offense, and (3) the juvenile is not 

amenable to care or rehabilitation in the juvenile system. R.C. 2152.12(B); State v. 

Reese, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-180126 and C-180412, 2019-Ohio-3680, ¶ 14.

{¶12} The state’s burden in a bindover hearing is to provide credible 

evidence of every element of an offense to support a finding that probable cause 

exists to believe that the juvenile committed the charged offense. In re A.J.S., 120 

Ohio St.3d 185, 2008-Ohio-5307, 897 N.E.2d 629, ¶ 42, citing State v. Iacona, 93 

Ohio St.3d 83, 93, 752 N.E.2d 937 (2001). “[B]ut that evidence does not have to be 

unassailable.” Id. at ¶ 46. “In meeting this standard the state must produce evidence 

that raises more than a mere suspicion of guilt, but need not provide evidence 

proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 42, quoting 

Iacona at 93. Whether the state has presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate 

probable cause to believe the juvenile has committed the act charged is a question of 

law that an appellate court reviews de novo. In re M.P., 124 Ohio St.3d 445, 2010-

Ohio-599, 923 N.E.2d 584, ¶ 13, citing In re A.J.S. at ¶ 47.

{¶13} To establish probable cause that T.S. committed felonious assault, the 

state had the burden to provide credible evidence that T.S. knowingly caused or 

attempted to cause physical harm to William Cook by means of a deadly weapon. See 

R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); In re A.J.S. at ¶ 42. An operable firearm is a deadly weapon. See 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

5

State v. Scott, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-19-030, 2020-Ohio-4854, ¶ 51; R.C. 

2923.11(A) and (B)(1). For the firearm specifications, the state had to provide 

credible evidence that T.S. had the firearm on or about his person or under his 

control while committing the felonious-assault offense, and that he displayed, 

brandished, indicated possession of, or used the firearm to facilitate the offense. See 

R.C. 2941.141(A) and 2941.145(A).

{¶14} The evidence presented at the bindover hearing was sufficient to 

support a finding of probable cause that T.S. knowingly attempted to cause physical 

harm to Cook by means of an operable firearm. T.S. admitted to the detective that he 

fired a gun at the people who got out of the car behind him, and the gun was 

recovered by police and found to be operable. In addition, Cook and Grigsby told the 

detective that the driver of the car in front of them began to shoot at them after 

Grigsby fired a warning shot or shots. Because the state met its burden to establish 

probable cause that T.S. engaged in conduct that would have constituted felonious 

assault and the firearm specifications if he had been an adult, the juvenile court erred 

by finding no probable cause to believe that T.S. had committed the charged acts. 

{¶15} While it is true that the trial court orally stated at the hearing, “[W]ith 

regard to the felonious assault charge, whether the shots were fired in the air or not, 

he fired in self defense,” T.S. urges us to ignore this because it was not included in 

the court’s entry. Rather, T.S. asks us to focus only on whether there was sufficient 

evidence to support the elements of felonious assault. As discussed above, we find 

there was probable cause to believe T.S. engaged in conduct that would have 

constituted felonious assault if he had been an adult. 

{¶16} We reverse the juvenile court’s judgment. This case is remanded to 

the juvenile court to set T.S.’s case for an amenability hearing. 

Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

6

WINKLER and SUNDERMANN, JJ., concur. 

J. HOWARD SUNDERMANN, JR., retired, from the First Appellate District, sitting by 

assignment.

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry this date.