In the Interest of J.L., a Child

The Court reversed juvenile's delinquency adjudication for committing theft by receiving stolen property holding that there was insufficient evidence to show that the juvenile knew or should have known the property was stolen.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The state filed a petition alleging that 14-year-old J. B. L. “appellant” was delinquent by committing theft by receiving two motorcycles, a Honda and a Suzuki, which he knew or should have known were stolen. The juvenile court adjudicated appellant delinquent with regard to the Suzuki but not the Honda. Because the evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant should have known that the Suzuki was stolen, we reverse the judgment. We are mindful that the standard of review is deferential. 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.1 Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that in July 2008, two motorcycles, a a 2002 CR 85 Honda and a 2007 Suzuki RMZ 250, both dirt bikes, were stolen from a trailer owned by Angela Cosby. She testified that she had purchased them in December 2007 for her sons, Stephen Dover and T. D. According to Cosby, when the motorcycles were stolen they had been ridden about 200 hours and were in “brand new” condition. When they were returned to Cosby, they were inoperable. Cosby testified that she saw the motorcycles while driving along Strickland Avenue one day and called the police.

Douglasville Police Officer Sadye Pittman testified that she responded to the call on or about October 20, 2008, and found the motorcycles fastened on top of a trailer in the driveway of appellant’s home. Pittman spoke with appellant and his older brother, J. L, both of whom stated that they had not realized that the bikes were stolen and that they were making payments on one of them to an individual. Pittman testified that the bikes were covered in mud.

In the Interest of J.L., a Child

The Court reversed juvenile's delinquency adjudication for committing theft by receiving stolen property holding that there was insufficient evidence to show that the juvenile knew or should have known the property was stolen.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report