In The Interest Of J.D., A Child.

Decision Date04 August 2010
Docket NumberNo. A10A1552.,A10A1552.
Citation305 Ga.App. 519,699 S.E.2d 827
PartiesIn the Interest of J.D., a child.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Jill E. Roth, for appellant.

Larry Chisolm, Dist. Atty., Diane M. McLeod, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

MIKELL, Judge.

The Juvenile Court of Chatham County adjudicated 16-year-old J.D. delinquent for acts, which if committed by an adult, would have constituted burglary, possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of a pistol by a minor. J.D. appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudications for burglary and possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime and that the trial court erred in qualifying the investigating officer as an expert witness. We disagree and affirm.

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 December 4, 2009, Gloria Steele was alone at her home in the Fred Wessels housing project when she heard a noise in the kitchen. When Steele entered the kitchen she observed a small male, wearing a green and black Army fatigue jacket, climbing through the window. The person commanded Steele to “Get down,” and she immediately ran out the front door and called 911 on her cell phone. Officer Kevin McCoon responded to the apartment three minutes later and observed that the kitchen window and front and back doors were open. McCoon noticed muddy footprints leading from the kitchen window to the back door. When Steele returned to the apartment with another officer, she noticed that her daughter's purse was missing and that there were muddy footprints on the kitchen floor. Steele told McCoon that the floor had been clean and that the muddy footprints came from the perpetrator. Once McCoon got a description of the perpetrator from Steele, he put out a “be on the lookout” alert.

McCoon testified that the weather was bad and that very few people were out walking around. Five minutes later, and thirteen minutes after Steele had called 911, Officer Adam Willis stopped two males including J.D., who was wearing an Army-style camouflage jacket. J.D. told Willis that he was on his way to see a girl on Waters Drive. Willis alerted McCoon, who arrived on the scene. When McCoon compared J.D.'s shoes to the muddy footprints he determined that they appeared to match in both tread pattern as well as size of the footprints.” Before placing J.D. in the patrol car to transport him to the scene, McCoon asked him if he had a gun. J.D. denied having a gun. McCoon patted him down and discovered a loaded pistol in the right pocket of his jacket. When McCoon asked J.D. why he was outside, J.D. told McCoon that he was coming from the area of Paul Court, which is in the vicinity of Steele's home. Willis testified that J.D. was calm and pleasant but that when McCoon arrived, he became nervous and agitated, began fidgeting, and kept his arms “in very close proximity to his waistline.”

Nikki Johnson testified that J.D. came to her house on Paul Court at approximately 5:00 p.m. and that he left sometime between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. J.D. testified that he left Johnson's home around 8:00 p.m. and was on his way to his girlfriend's house when he was stopped by the police, approximately ten to fifteen feet from Johnson's home. J.D. admitted carrying a loaded pistol and testified that he lied to officers because he was scared. J.D. further explained that he had been carrying the gun because he wanted to scare students at school who had jumped him and threatened him with a gun. He also testified that he has had the same job for over two years, making approximately $500 a month.

1. J.D. contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's adjudications for burglary and possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime because it was entirely circumstantial and failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than his guilt. In this regard, J.D. points out that McCoon's footprint analysis was deficient; that Steele never saw the perpetrator and could not positively identify the jacket worn by him as the jacket worn by the perpetrator; that J.D. was stopped more than 15 minutes after the burglary in a separate housing project; that J.D. was not carrying anything belonging to Steele when he was stopped; and that J.D. provided to officers a credible reason for being in the Hitch Village housing project, adjacent to-but not in the immediate vicinity of-the Fred Wessels housing project.

“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.” 2 “However, circumstantial evidence must only exclude reasonable hypotheses; it need not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt. Under this rule the [s]tate is not required to remove every possibility of innocence of the crime charged.” 3 Moreover, whether a hypothesis is reasonable is a question for the factfinder, here the juvenile court.4

In this case, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for the factfinder to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that J.D. committed the offenses charged. He was in the vicinity of Steele's apartment shortly after the burglary, wearing a jacket that matched Steele's description of the jacket worn by the perpetrator, carrying a loaded pistol, and wearing shoes that matched the tread pattern and size of the muddy footprints found in Steele's apartment. McCoon testified that the streets were empty because of the weather, and Willis testified that J.D. and his companion were the only two individuals on the street at the time they were stopped, 13 minutes after Steele called 911. Willis also testified that J.D. became nervous and agitated when McCoon arrived on the scene. It was reasonable for the factfinder to find that J.D. committed the offense of burglary when he entered Steele's home “without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein” 5 and that he possessed a firearm at the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Martin v. State
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 9 de janeiro de 2019
    ...crime, where gun was in laundry hamper and marijuana that defendant had handled was in box on nearby shelf); In the Interest of J. D. , 305 Ga. App. 519, 521 (1), 699 S.E.2d 827 (2010) (circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support juvenile delinquency adjudication for possession of fir......
  • In re A.A.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 28 de setembro de 2015
    ...rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that a juvenile committed the acts charged. In the Interest of J.D.,305 Ga.App. 519, 519, 699 S.E.2d 827 (2010).So viewed, on November 20, 2014, the juvenile court held a hearing on a motion to suppress filed by A.A. The evid......
  • Martin v. State, A18A1627
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 9 de janeiro de 2019
    ...crime, where gun was in laundry hamper and marijuana that defendant had handled was in box on nearby shelf); In the Interest of J. D. , 305 Ga. App. 519, 521 (1), 699 S.E.2d 827 (2010) (circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support juvenile delinquency adjudication for possession of fir......
  • In the Interest of T.C.S., a Child.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 3 de fevereiro de 2011
    ...thought at the time that T.C.S.'s threat was “just trash talk.” 4. (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) In the Interest of J.D., 305 Ga.App. 519, 520–521(1), 699 S.E.2d 827 (2010). 5. See OCGA § 16–5–21(a)(2); In the Interest of D.B., 305 Ga.App. 338, 339, 699 S.E.2d 772 (2010). 6. OCGA § 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT