In the Interest of Q. P.

Q.P. was adjudicated delinquent after the juvenile court found he committed an act which, had he been an adult, would have violated the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, OCGA § 16-13-30, by possessing marijuana. He appeals, citing in his sole enumeration of error that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of delinquency. When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, it is not the job of this Court to weigh the evidence nor to determine the credibility of the witnesses.1 Rather, when examining the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, we must decide if a rational fact finder could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the juvenile committed the act charged.2

Citing OCGA § 24-4-6 as his only authority, Q.P. contends that the state did not meet its burden as it failed to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. In order to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, OCGA § 24-4-6 requires that the facts proved must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. While this language does require the state to eliminate other reasonable hypotheses, it is not interpreted as requiring the state to meet the exceptionally high burden of eliminating every possible alternative.3 The determination of whether an alternate theory of innocence constitutes a mere possibility or a reasonable hypothesis is left to the discretion of the fact finder.4 Only if this discretion is abused, leaving the verdict unsupported as a matter of law, will the findings be disturbed.5