A.D. v. State
Decision Date | 28 January 2015 |
Docket Number | No. CR–14–420,CR–14–420 |
Citation | 453 S.W.3d 696,2015 Ark. App. 35 |
Parties | A.D., Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee |
Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Flinn Law Firm, P.A., by: Jennifer Williams Flinn, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., Little Rock, by: Brad Newman, Ass't Att'y Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Fifteen-year-old A.D. appeals the Benton County Circuit Court's order that found him guilty as an accomplice to theft of property and adjudicated him delinquent. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's ruling. We affirm.
In an amended delinquency petition filed 22 January 2014, A.D. was charged as an accomplice to theft of property, a Class A misdemeanor. The State alleged that A.D. aided two other juveniles in shoplifting from Gordman's. The court held a hearing in February 2014, and Jill Timbes, a Gordman's employee, testified that she was in charge of “audit safety” and monitored security cameras, associates, and people entering the building. She explained that on September 7, 2013, she observed A.D. and another juvenile, C.B., enter the store, and that A.D. “looked up for a camera” when they entered the store. She agreed that it was protocol for her to observe anyone that either looked up at the cameras or proceeded to the fragrance and jewelry areas, which are the store's highest theft areas. She observed the two young men wander around the store and stated that A.D. seemed nervous, describing him as The two young men then met up with a female, A.M., who was carrying “a lot” of store merchandise and a large black purse. Around this time, Timbes was also notified that store employees had found several empty hangers in the shoe department.
Timbes observed the three juveniles walking through the store and eventually stopping in the shoe department, where C.B. and A.M. proceeded to squat down to the floor for several minutes with A.D. standing “right over them.” Timbes described A.D. as looking “back and forth” and “nervous.” The prosecutor then played a DVD of the store surveillance footage from that day, which was a stipulated exhibit. Timbes explained that she confronted A.M. and C.B. as they left the store and took them to her office, then went back to confront A.D., who was walking out of the store. Timbes found several items in A.M.'s purse, including a leather jacket, shirts, socks, and a speaker. C.B. also had a speaker down his pants. A.D. did not have any merchandise in his possession.
Officer Christopher Douglas with the Rogers Police Department testified that he responded to a shoplifting report on September 7 and that he observed the three juveniles in Timbes's office. Douglas stated that the juveniles were cooperative and that A.D. He explained that the juveniles were arrested but released to their parents' custody.
C.B. then testified and admitted that he shoplifted from Gordman's. He stated that he and A.D. had ridden in A.M.'s car to the store, but he denied A.D.'s involvement, stating that ” C.B. testified that A.D. was angry and that he did not help them shoplift.
A.D. renewed his motion to dismiss, which was again denied. The court stated, Addressing A.D., the court found that “once you have knowledge that the stolen items are on the possession of your friends, and walking around the store, acting like normal teenagers, that nothing is going on; you've now become part of the scheme, the plan.” The court found A.D. guilty, sentenced him to three months' probation, and assessed various costs and fees. A.D. now appeals to this court.
While a delinquency adjudication is not a criminal conviction, it is based upon an allegation by the State that the juvenile has committed a certain crime. J.F. v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 499, 2009 WL 1813239. Our standard of review is the same as it would be in a criminal case, that is, whether the adjudication is supported by substantial evidence. E.S. v. State, 2013 Ark. App....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
K.B. v. State
...is not a criminal conviction, the standard of review is the same as it would be in a criminal case. E.g., A.D. v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 35, at 4, 453 S.W.3d 696, 698 (citing E.S. v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 378, 2013 WL 2445213 ). A motion to dismiss made during an adjudication proceeding is a......
-
Roberts v. State
...an accomplice with the crime. Id. Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to make a person an accomplice. A.D. v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 35, 453 S.W.3d 696. In his motion to dismiss below, Roberts mentioned only possession of a defaced firearm and aggravated robbery—not theft of......
-
J.N.A. v. State
...is not a criminal conviction, it is based on an allegation by the State that the juvenile has committed a certain crime. A.D. v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 35, 453 S.W.3d 696. Our standard of review is the same as it would be in a criminal case, that is, whether the adjudication is supported by ......
-
B.T. v. State
...not a criminal conviction, it is based on an allegation by the State that the juvenile has committed a certain crime. A.D. v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 35, 453 S.W.3d 696. Our standard of review is the same as it would be in a criminal case; that is, whether the adjudication is supported by su......