DocketNumber: No. 06AP-597.
Citation Numbers: 173 Ohio App. 3d 171, 2007 Ohio 3216
Judges: SADLER, Presiding Judge.
Filed Date: 6/21/2007
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
{¶ 49} In State v. Iacona (2001),
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. * * * The state must provide credible evidence of every element of an offense to support a finding that probable cause exists to believe that the child committed the offense. * * * To determine whether probable cause exists, the juvenile court "must evaluate the quality of the evidence presented by the state in support of probable cause as well as any evidence presented by the respondent that attacks probable cause."
Iacona, citing Kent v. United States (1966),
{¶ 50} The issue in Iacona was not whether the juvenile court erred in finding probable cause. The issue was, had a blood culture report been disclosed prior to the probable-cause hearing, whether the juvenile court would have reached a different conclusion regarding probable cause. Therefore, the Iacona court did not expressly set forth the proper standard of appellate review of a probable-cause determination. Rather, the juvenile court was directed to "evaluate the quality of the evidence." Id. I do not believe, in setting forth the standard for the trial court, that theIacona court signaled a change in appellate review of probable cause in juvenile bindover proceedings, which is abuse of discretion. See, e.g., In re Stanley,
{¶ 51} Upon review of the present case, I concur in judgment only. Using the abuse-of-discretion standard, I would still find that the juvenile court erred in finding no probable cause as to attempted murder.