Following a bench trial on February 28, 2008, juveniles R. S. and C. S. were adjudicated delinquent for the offenses of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, based on a robbery and shooting which occurred at a gas station in placePlaceNameHenryPlaceNameCountyR. S. appeals the adjudication of delinquency in Case No. A08A2401, and C. S. appeals in Case No. A08A2402. Among other errors, both juveniles challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s judgment. Finding no error, we affirm the juvenile court’s adjudication of delinquency in both cases. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a juvenile court’s adjudication, we apply the same standard of review used in criminal cases. We construe the evidence in favor of the court’s adjudication and determine if a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the acts charged.1 So construed, the evidence shows that on the evening of July 24, 2006, Rakesh Kanotra was robbed at gunpoint and shot at point-blank range while he was working at a gas station in placePlaceNameHenryPlaceNameCounty. According to his testimony, he was alone in the station when an individual with a handkerchief covering part of his face entered the station and held a gun on Kanotra. This individual was later identified as C. S. A second individual, later identified as R. S., acted as lookout at the station’s other door. Kanotra testified that both juveniles had their hair in similar one- or two-inch-long braids. C. S. approached Kanotra and held the gun at Kanotra’s chest, but said nothing; Kanotra, in fear of his life, opened the cash register and handed the cash therein to C. S. C. S. then opened fire and shot Kanotra in the face, causing severe injury. A videotape of the robbery and shooting, recorded on the gas station’s security video camera, was entered into evidence and played for the juvenile court at the delinquency hearing. A few days after the robbery, Detective David Allen Ferguson, the investigating officer for the Henry County Police Department, showed Kanotra a photographic array of six subjects, including a photo of C. S. The array did not contain a photo of R. S. At that time, Kanotra circled two photos on the array as the ones that looked most like the person who shot him; one of the photos circled was that of C. S. At trial, Kanotra identified R. S. as the lookout.
Detective placeCityFergusontestified that when he interviewed C. S. the day after the robbery, C. S.’s hair was close-cropped and cut unevenly, close to the skin in spots; and that an area of longer hair remained along the collar line. A photograph of C. S., showing the short, uneven haircut, was identified by the officer as having been taken three days after the robbery, and was introduced into evidence at trial.
