A. C. R-M. was adjudicated delinquent for committing the act of criminal damage to property in the second degree.1 He appeals following the denial of his motion for new trial, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand for adjudication and disposition consistent with this opinion. In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an adjudication of delinquency, we construe the evidence and every inference from the evidence in favor of the juvenile court’s adjudication to determine if a reasonable finder of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the juvenile committed the acts charged. Thus, the standard of review on appeal in a case of adjudication of delinquency of a juvenile is the same as that for any criminal case. In reviewing such cases, we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.2 So viewed, the evidence shows that A. C. R-M. and D. S., another juvenile, lived in the Cedar Heights Mobile Home Park. The facility manager inspected the property on Monday, March 29, 2010 after receiving a phone call from the maintenance worker regarding damage to several mobile homes. The manager observed what appeared to be holes from a pellet gun in nine of the mobile homes, including the one on Lot 99. The park owner testified that he did not receive any reports of damage to the mobile homes before March 27, and the investigating officer stated that he was not aware of any damage reports at the property before or after the weekend of March 27-29. T. J., an 11-year-old girl who also lived in the mobile home park, testified on direct examination that she observed A. C. R-M. and D. S. “shooting the trailers with a BB gun,” including Lots 6 and 99. According to T. J., the damage occurred on a Saturday, and she told her mother and the property manager about the incident on the following Monday. During cross-examination, T. J. testified that she saw A. C. R-M. shoot a BB gun towards the home located on Lot 99 only, and that he did so some time after she spoke to the police. T. J. later indicated, however, that she was “not sure” when the damage to Lot 99 occurred, and she answered affirmatively when asked whether she had “been kind of confused on some of the dates.” Both T. J. and her father testified that T. J.’s brother sold a pellet gun to A. C. R-M.
The property manager and the maintenance worker inspected the damage to each of the approximately eight to ten mobile homes that sustained damage, which included approximately twenty to thirty broken windows total. The owner then obtained an estimate from a window installer, which indicated that each replacement window would cost $56. According to the property owner, the damage to the property totaled $2,041.
