## Facts

- A group of gang members gathered in front of a home during a family birthday celebration while looking for a relative involved in a prior altercation.
- Witnesses testified a handgun was passed among the group.
- T.K., a juvenile, was identified as shouting “Shoot” and similar exhortations while the gun was present.
- Shots were fired toward the home, wounding three people, including the homeowner and the homeowner’s minor nephew.
- The state charged T.K. in juvenile court with delinquency counts corresponding to felonious assault and aggravated riot, with firearm and gang specifications.
- The juvenile court adjudicated T.K. delinquent on two felonious-assault counts (as an aider and abettor) and one aggravated-riot count, finding T.K. knew a gun was present and intended his words to be acted upon; the court relied on transferred-intent reasoning despite uncertainty about a specific intended target.
- The court of appeals affirmed the aggravated-riot adjudication but reversed the felonious-assault adjudications for insufficient evidence, emphasizing conflicting testimony and the inability to identify the shooter or intended victim.

## Issues

1. Whether delinquency for felonious assault based on complicity by aiding and abetting requires proof of the principal offender’s identity.
2. Whether the state must prove a specific intended victim to sustain complicity-based felonious-assault adjudications when the juvenile intentionally encouraged the shooting.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals in part and reinstated the juvenile court’s felonious-assault adjudications.
- The Court held the state need not prove the identity of the principal offender to establish complicity under R.C. 2923.03(A)(2).
- The Court held evidence that T.K. knew a gun was present and intentionally encouraged the shooting was sufficient for aiding-and-abetting liability, notwithstanding uncertainty about the intended target.
- The aggravated-riot adjudication remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ohio’s complicity statute, the state is not required to establish the principal offender’s identity to obtain a conviction/adjudication for complicity.
- Aiding and abetting may be shown by intentional encouragement or incitement, combined with the culpability required for the underlying offense.
- Uncertainty about which victim was specifically targeted does not defeat complicity for felonious assault when the evidence supports intent to cause harm by the shooting and the harm occurs.
- Conflicts in testimony do not make evidence legally insufficient where a rational factfinder could find the elements of complicity beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the juvenile’s felonious-assault adjudications, holding that complicity may be proved without identifying the shooter or a specific intended victim when the evidence shows the juvenile knowingly and intentionally encouraged the shooting that resulted in injury.


In re T.K., 109 Ohio St. 3d 512 (Ohio 2006)