In May 2007, the Juvenile Court of DeKalb County adjudicated then sixteen-year-old T. M. delinquent based upon offenses which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of carrying a weapon on school property, OCGA § 16-11-127.1 b; possession with intent to distribute marijuana on school property, OCGA § 16-13-32.4 a; and obstruction of a law enforcement officer, OCGA § 16-10-24 a. On appeal,1 T. M. contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. T. M. contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication of delinquency based upon possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He argues that the only evidence that he possessed marijuana was circumstantial and that the State failed to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis that could explain what occurred in this case. 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. Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted. In the Interest of B. M. , 289 Ga. App. 214, 214-215 656 SE2d 855 2008.
To warrant an adjudication of delinquency based “on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” OCGA § 24-4-6. “However, circumstantial evidence must only exclude reasonable hypotheses; it need not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of the defendant’s guilt. Under this rule, the State is not required to remove every possibility of innocence of the crime charged.” Citations omitted. In the Interest of A. D. C. , 228 Ga. App. 829, 830 493 SE2d 38 1997. Moreover, “whether a hypothesis is reasonable is a question for the finder of fact, and such finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless the guilty verdict is unsupportable as a matter of law.” Citation and punctuation omitted. In the Interest of G. J. , 251 Ga. App. 299, 300 554 SE2d 269 2001. See also In the Interest of Q. P. , 286 Ga. App. 225, 226 648 SE2d 731 2007 “The determination of whether an alternate theory of innocence constitutes a mere possibility or a reasonable hypothesis is left to the discretion of the factfinder.” footnote omitted.
