In re C.S.

• Decision Date: 14 October 2015
• Docket Number: A15A1155.,Nos. A15A1154,s. A15A1154
• Citation: 778 S.E.2d 396,334 Ga.App. 153
• Parties: In the Interest of C.S., a child (two cases).
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

334 Ga.App. 153

778 S.E.2d 396

In the Interest of C.S., a child (two cases).

Nos. A15A1154

A15A1155.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Oct. 14, 2015.

Meredyth Lange Yoon, for Appellant.

Andrew J. Ekonomou, Atlanta, Jacquelyn Lee Johnson, for Appellee.

Opinion

BOGGS, Judge.

A juvenile court adjudicated 16–year–old C.S. delinquent for acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and violation of the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act. The judge ordered that C.S. be placed in confinement for 24 months and kept in the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice until he reaches age 21. In Case No. A15A1154, C.S. appeals, challenging among other things, the sufficiency of the evidence. In Case No. A15A1155, he asserts error related to the denial of his motion for an appeal bond. For the reasons explained below, we affirm in Case No. A15A1154 and dismiss Case No. A15A1155 as moot.

1. C.S. asserts that the State failed to prove venue. But the victim's testimony that the crimes occurred in Glynn County was sufficient to establish venue. See Long v. State,324 Ga.App. 882, 889(1), 752 S.E.2d 54 (2013).

2. C.S. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

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. Thus, the standard of review on appeal in a case of adjudication of delinquency of a juvenile is the same as that for any criminal case. In reviewing such cases, we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of M.L.,316 Ga.App. 413, 729 S.E.2d 548 (2012).

Construing the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's ruling, the record showed that the victim, 19 years old at the time of trial, had a verbal altercation with Josh Pasco: “We had like exchanged words.” A few days later, at about 7:00 p.m., Pasco and two other males approached the victim as he got out of his car in front of a recording studio. The victim testified that the second man, whom he identified by the nickname “Amp” and police identified as Anthony Thomas, “came up to me, and swung, and missed.” The victim grabbed Thomas, sat back down in his car, and used Thomas as a shield to peek around “to see what's really going on.” The victim explained that Pasco stood in front of his vehicle and fired a shot through the windshield that landed in the passenger seat. The third person, whom the victim testified he did not know, reached through the passenger side window with a gun and attempted to hit the victim to get him to release his hold on Thomas.

The victim managed to push Thomas out of his car and drive away. He called police once he was “four or five blocks” away. The victim stated that he described the third person to police as an older guy, about “five-eight, five-nine,” with a black shirt and “twist-ies in his hair.” The victim testified that he knew C.S. and that C.S. was present the night of the attack, but he was “standing in the park, he didn't have nothing to do with it, he was just standing there,” about 15 yards away. The victim explained that other people were standing in the park “coming to watch it, that's all they were doing, coming to watch it.” Three other witnesses also testified that C.S. was in the nearby park with others observing the incident. One of these witnesses, a friend of Pasco's, testified that after the incident, Pasco told him “that the police caught everyone,” and that “that included [C.S.] because [C.S.] had been arrested at that time.”

An investigator testified that she responded to the scene to find the victim bleeding from the mouth. She explained that the victim identified Pasco as “Josh” and Thomas as “Amp” but that he did not know the third person involved in the assault. Although the victim asserted that he described the third person to police as an older guy, about “five-eight, five-nine,” with “twist-ies in his hair,” the investigator testified that the victim described the third person as younger than Thomas or Pasco, Thomas' height or a little shorter, with “dreds ... like, twisted.” She testified that Thomas is 17 years old, Pasco is 18 years old, Thomas is 5 foot 9 inches tall, and C.S. is 5 foot 1 inch tall. She testified further that although the victim did not know the third attacker, police were able to identify this third person as C.S. from the victim's description and from Thomas, who denied any involvement, but explained that he, C.S., and Pasco “had been together all night.”

The investigator explained that the victim told her he was formerly in a gang (“the 305 Boys and the 912 Boys”), and that when the three approached him in the parking lot, they made comments that the attack was in retaliation for the death of another “Blood member.” She testified further that the victim “stated he didn't want anything to do with this, because he felt like the Bloods would come after him if he would testify against the guys that were—That shot at him.” A detective testified that when he arrived at the scene, the victim told him “that the boys from 912 had shot at him.” He stated further that C.S. “initially [ ] was associated or [a] member of the 305 Miami Bloods,” Thomas and Pasco were each associated with the “912 criminal street gang,” and the victim “was an associate of the 305 Miami Bloods,” but “has been pretty inactive with that organization since he's been employed.” The detective explained that “912, and 305, are both Bloods,” and that “[t]hey're linked by the fact that they're family—In the Blood family, they're both bloods.”

Later that night, based upon information provided by the victim, officers went to Pasco's home where they found Thomas, C.S., Thomas' cousin and Pasco's parents. C.S. attempted to flee upon seeing officers, but was apprehended and taken to the police station. A detective testified that he interviewed C.S. for about 12 minutes. C.S. admitted that he, Thomas and Pasco had been “just hanging out,” but denied any involvement in the assault. When the detective told C.S. that the police had probable cause to arrest him, C.S. responded that “[h]e'd take the three felonies.”

The investigator further explained that during the investigation, the victim told her that his mother informed him, before he went to the recording studio, that three individuals had come to his home looking for him. The investigator stated that “one of [the victim's] siblings recognized and knew [C.S.] by name” as one of the three individuals. The victim testified, however, that before he left for the recording studio, his mother called and told him that “some boys came looking for [him]. And, I was like, um who were they? And, my brother—And, he just said, [Pasco], [Thomas], and another guy in another—but I don't know—.”

With regard to the three witnesses who asserted that C.S. stood in a nearby park during the assault, the juvenile court found: “[w]ith few exceptions, the Court places no credibility on the testimony of these witnesses.” The court noted that two of the three were members of a street gang, that their testimony was “evasive, conflicting and inconsistent,” and that one of the witnesses sent a Facebook message to C.S.'s mother stating that C.S. “was there when the shooting took place and that he had gone all the way up there where everything happened.” The juvenile court found that the victim's testimony, to the extent it conflicted with his prior out of court statements, lacked credibility, including his description to police of the third assailant. The court noted that the victim, “[i]n violation of the court's express instructions when the witnesses were sequestered, [ ] put his arm around [ C.S.]'s mother ... and whispered in her ear.”

The court also found significant that one of C.S.'s three witnesses, a cousin of Pasco, testified that after Thomas and C.S. were arrested, Pasco told him “that the police had gotteneveryone who was involved in the attack on the [victim], except him.Of course, the only others who had been “gotten”were [Thomas] and [C.S.]” Finally, the court explained that it was permitted to draw an inference that C.S.'s flight from police “evinces a consciousness of guilt,” See, e.g., State v. Frost,297 Ga. 296, 305, 773 S.E.2d 700 (2015).

C.S. contends that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a finding that he assaulted the victim, either directly or as a party to a crime, because his mere presence at the nearby park was not enough to establish that he was one of the perpetrators. He argues that for this same reason, the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was in possession of a firearm. C.S. argues further that the testimony of the detective is insufficient to establish that he “was employed by or associated with any gang,” and that “the assault in itself would not be enough to prove that [he], Pasco, and Thomas were all associated with each other as part of the same criminal street gang.”

“To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” OCGA § 24–14–6. And

[q]uestions as to the reasonableness of hypotheses are generally to be decided by the [fact finder] which heard the evidence and where the [fact finder] is authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt, that finding will not be disturbed unless the verdict of guilty is insupportable as a matter of law.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Rogers v. State,...