In the Interest of I. M. W.

The evidence satisfied the mens rea requirement of the Anti-Mask Act, as it supported a finding that the juvenile intended to conceal his identity and to threaten, intimidate, or provoke the apprehension of violence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a bench trial, this 13-year-old juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for a violation of OCGA § 16-11-38, which prohibits wearing a mask, hood, or other device that conceals the identity of the wearer, and a violation of OCGA § 16-11-36, for loitering or prowling. On appeal, he contends the juvenile court should have granted his motion to dismiss, that the court erred by allowing the testimony of two of the witnesses, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication on each count. Construed in favor of the conviction, the evidence shows that on December 4, 2010, Cassie Morrow was in her home in Watkinsville when her doorbell rang. When she answered the door two male youth were there; one was wearing a black ski mask, and the other was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and had his hands in his pockets fiddling for something. Morrow was worried that the second youth had a gun. The youth in the mask put his hands up to his face and stood staring at Morrow. Morrow, who was pregnant, was scared. Morrow’s daughter started screaming, and her fiance shut the door and locked it. The doorbell then rang 15 more times, after which the boys ran off. Morrow’s fiance then ran outside.

An officer who received a call, arrived promptly and saw Morrow’s fiance running after one of the young men. He pursued down a nearby road. He made contact with both boys, who did not run from him; one was wearing a black ski mask, and the second was wearing a gray sweater. The officer could not identify the masked boy when he had the mask on. The officer told the boy in the mask to remove it, and the boy, who was smiling at the time, complied. The officer testified that I. M. W. gave his name when asked and said that he thought he was doing something funny. The second boy was not charged with a crime. The two boys were taken to their homes; I. M. W. lives in the neighborhood where the incident occurred. The officer identified I. M. W. in court as the boy who removed the mask.

In the Interest of I. M. W.

The evidence satisfied the mens rea requirement of the Anti-Mask Act, as it supported a finding that the juvenile intended to conceal his identity and to threaten, intimidate, or provoke the apprehension of violence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report