In Re Corcoran
68 Ohio App. 3d 213, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 2547, 587 N.E.2d 957 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory right to a speedy trial for adults does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, and an appellate court cannot review a challenge to the manifest weight of evidence if the appellant fails to provide a complete transcript of all relevant testimony from the trial court.
Facts:
- On June 23, 1988, thirteen-year-old Michael Corcoran and his friend, Tim Bravchok, entered The Pampered Pet store in Bainbridge Township, Ohio.
- Bravchok asked Michael Corcoran if he should drop some super glue on one of the gerbils in an aquarium.
- Michael Corcoran responded by saying it did not matter to him.
- Bravchok then dripped some super glue on the back of one of the gerbils.
- Julia Ann Fretter, an employee of The Pampered Pet, saw the boys by the gerbil cage but did not witness the gluing incident.
- After the boys left the store, Fretter discovered the glue on the gerbil and telephoned the police.
- The police subsequently located and questioned Michael Corcoran and Bravchok.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 22, 1988, a complaint was filed in the Geauga County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, alleging Michael Corcoran was a delinquent child for violating R.C. 2909.07 (criminal mischief).
- A hearing was scheduled for September 19, 1988, but was continued by the state because a key witness was hospitalized.
- The hearing was rescheduled for November 14, 1988, but was continued again to December 28, 1988, by the juvenile court for "good cause shown."
- On November 23, 1988, Michael Corcoran filed a motion to dismiss, which the juvenile court denied.
- On December 12, 1988, Michael Corcoran filed a second motion to dismiss pursuant to Juv.R. 9.
- On December 13, 1988, the juvenile court denied Michael Corcoran's Juv.R. 9 motion.
- On December 28, 1988, a hearing was held, and the juvenile court adjudged Michael Corcoran to be a delinquent child.
- Michael Corcoran (appellant) timely filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals (this court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statutory right to a speedy trial for adults apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, and can an appellate court review a juvenile court's factual findings for manifest weight of the evidence if the appellant provides only a partial transcript of the relevant testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph E. Mahoney
No, the statutory speedy trial provisions for adults do not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, and an appellate court cannot review a finding as against the manifest weight of the evidence if the appellant provides only a partial transcript of the relevant proceedings. The court affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, addressing each of Michael Corcoran's assignments of error. First, regarding the claim that the juvenile court erred in not avoiding formal proceedings and denying motions to dismiss under Juv.R. 9, the court held that the decision to pursue formal action or conduct an informal hearing is within the juvenile court's discretion. Michael Corcoran requested outright dismissal and did not suggest alternative community resources, nor did he demonstrate prejudice from the manner of the hearing. Second, concerning the claim that the finding of Michael Corcoran as an accomplice was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court could not address the issue. Under App.R. 9(B), an appellant must include a transcript of all evidence relevant to a claim that a finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Michael Corcoran provided only a partial written transcript of the videotaped proceedings, primarily favorable to his cause, which prevented the appellate court from reviewing the complete record. In such circumstances, a presumption of regularity of the proceedings below arises. Third, regarding the speedy trial claim, the court determined that the statutory speedy trial provisions for adults (R.C. 2945.71(B)(1)) do not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, citing State, ex rel. Williams, v. Court of Common Pleas and State v. Reed. While constitutional speedy trial factors exist, Michael Corcoran failed to show any prejudice due to the delay in his case. Juv.R. 29(A) requires hearings to be set as soon as practicable, especially for non-detained juveniles, with continuances permissible for good cause. Fourth, the court found no evidence in the record that a school report questionnaire, allegedly requested by the juvenile court, ever existed or was used at the adjudicatory hearing.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the significant distinctions between juvenile and adult criminal proceedings, particularly regarding statutory speedy trial rights and the discretionary authority of juvenile courts. It reinforces that adult statutory time limits do not automatically transfer to juvenile delinquency cases, which operate under their own rules emphasizing practicability and individualized care. The decision also serves as a crucial reminder for appellants regarding their burden to provide a complete and accurate record for appellate review, highlighting that incomplete records will result in a presumption of correctness for the lower court's findings.
