In the Interest of M.A.R.

The circumstantial evidence supported the juvenile's delinquency adjudication for possession of alcohol by a minor.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A juvenile court judge found that 16-year-old M. A. R. committed the delinquent act of possession of alcohol by a minor.1 M. A. R. appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. We find no error and affirm M. A. R.’s conviction. Viewed in the light most favorable to support the juvenile court’s findings, the record shows that a police officer observed M. A. R. crossing the parking lot of a commercial property late at night. At the time, M. A. R. was drinking from a large can that the officer suspected contained alcohol. The officer approached M. A. R. While he no longer held a canned beverage, the officer testified that M. A. R. smelled of alcohol and his eyes were red and glossy. The officer went to the location where he had first seen M. A. R. and recovered a “23 1/2 ounce juice malt beverage can, which contained 9.9 alcohol.” The can “was very cold to the touch and it was right where the officer had last seen M. A. R.” When the officer returned to M. A. R. with the can, M. A. R. admitted he had been drinking alcohol, but the officer could not recall whether M. A. R. admitted he had been drinking from the recovered can.

M. A. R. argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the state’s circumstantial evidence merely showed that he was present near an open beverage can allegedly containing alcohol. It did not show that he was in possession of the can. At trial, M. A. R. denied the can was in his possession and denied drinking alcohol. When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, it is not this Court’s job to weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses; rather, we must examine the record in the light most favorable to support the judgment and determine whether the factfinder could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the juvenile committed the act charged.2

In the Interest of M.A.R.

The circumstantial evidence supported the juvenile's delinquency adjudication for possession of alcohol by a minor.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report