COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 66320 IN THE MATTER OF: : : MONICA JOHNSON : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND : OPINION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : APRIL 13, 1995 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Juvenile Court Division of Common Pleas Court : Case No. 9300439 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: Bruce Courey, Esq. Fred D. Middleton, Esq. Assistant Prosecuting 620 Leader Building Attorney 526 Superior Avenue The Justice Center Cleveland, OH 44114 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - PATTON, C.J. Defendant-appellant, Monica Johnson, appeals the trial court's ruling finding her delinquent for murdering Frederick Wisch. The facts in this case are undisputed. On the night of January 10, 1993, the victim, Frederick Wisch, went to the Eldorado Motel located in Garfield Heights, Ohio, to smoke crack cocaine. There, he met an acquaintance, Larry Mixon. They both rented their own rooms. After smoking all the crack they had on them, Wisch and Mixon went to East 162nd Street and Seville to purchase more crack. They encountered Melvin King, Johnson and Johnson's boyfriend, Marvin Harris. They all returned to the Eldorado Motel. At the Eldorado Motel, Harris wanted to rent Wisch's Ford Bronco in exchange for crack cocaine. Wisch complained of the quality of the crack and decided to obtain crack from King. Johnson and Mixon left the room to find King. Harris motioned for them to come back into the room. Mixon testified that when they returned to the room, Harris had a phone in his hand threatening to beat Wisch. Words were exchanged and Harris hit Wisch on the head with the phone. A struggle ensued between Wisch and Harris and the two started choking each other. Wisch was on top of Harris and at this point Johnson stabbed Wisch eighteen times with a pair of scissors. King then entered the room and Wisch rose from the floor and King hit him once in the jaw, knocking him onto the bed. King, Mixon, - 3 - Harris, and Johnson then left the room leaving Wisch to bleed to death. Johnson's first assignment of error states: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE FAMILY OF THE VICTIM TO REMAIN IN THE COURTROOM DURING THE TRIAL PROCEEDING OVER THE OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL. Johnson maintains that the trial court erred when it permitted the family of the victim to remain in the courtroom during the trial proceedings over objection. Specifically, Johnson asserts that the trial court violated Juv.R. 27 when it permitted the family of the victim to remain in the courtroom during the trial proceedings. Juv.R. 27 states in relevant part: The Juvenile Court may conduct its hearings in an informal manner and may adjourn such hearings from time to time. In the hearing of any case the general public may be excluded and only such persons admitted as have a direct interest in the case. The Ohio Supreme Court stated in In Re T.R. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 6, 17, that Juv.R. 27 authorizes but does not require closure of the hearing. Therefore, closure of a delinquency hearing is not mandatory pursuant to Juv.R. 27. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it permitted the victim's family to remain in the courtroom during the proceedings. Johnson's second assignment of error states: II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PROCEEDING DIRECTLY TO DISPOSITION AND IMPOSED A MANDATORY SENTENCE IN ERROR. - 4 - Johnson maintains that the trial court erred in proceeding directly to disposition and imposed a mandatory sentence in error. Specifically, Johnson asserts that the court was required to have a separate dispositional hearing, and the failure to do so constitutes reversible error. Juv.R. 34(A) states that "[t]he dispositional hearing may be held immediately following the adjudicatory hearing * * *." Moreover, R.C. 2151.35 states in relevant part: (A) * * * If the court at the adjudicatory hearing finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the child is a delinquent or unruly child or a juvenile traffic offender, the court shall proceed immediately, or at a postponed hearing, to hear the evidence as to the proper disposition to be made under sections 2151.352 [2151.35.2] to 2151.355 [2151.35.5] of the Revised Code. In the present case, immediately following the adjudicatory hearing and without objection, the trial court adjudicated Johnson delinquent by reason of having committed an act that would be the offense of murder if committed by an adult. The trial court then sentenced Johnson pursuant to the disposition guidelines in R.C. 2151.355 (A)(6) which states: If the child was adjudicated delinquent by reason of having committed an act that would be the offense of murder or aggravated murder if committed by an adult, commit the child to the legal custody of the department of youth services for institutionalization in a secure facility until the child's attainment of the age of twenty-one years. We find that the trial court did not commit reversible error when it followed R.C. 2151.355 (A)(6) and adjudicated Johnson - 5 - immediately following the delinquency hearing without taking further evidence. Moreover, we note that Johnson did not object at trial and has therefore waived her right to appeal this issue. State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112, paragraph one of the syllabus. Accordingly, Johnson's second assignment of error is overruled. Johnson's third assignment of error states:. III. THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY APPLY THE TESTS OF A PROPER SELF-DEFENSE TO THE INSTANT CASE. Johnson maintains that the trial court failed to properly apply the test of self-defense. Specifically, Johnson claims that she proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she stabbed Wisch in self-defense. In order for Johnson to stand in the shoes of Harris and establish she acted in self-defense, she had to show (1) Harris was not at fault for creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) she had a bona fide belief that Harris was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that Harris' only means of escape from such danger was for her to use force and (3) she must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger. State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 249. The trial court found, and we agree, that under these circumstances Harris would not have been entitled to claim self- defense. Harris initiated the attack by hitting Wisch over the - 6 - head with the telephone. The trial court stated that the use of deadly force was unreasonable. Accordingly, Johnson's third assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 7 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 Juvenile Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. HARPER, J. DYKE, J., CONCUR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .