T.D. v. State
| Decision Date | 31 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. CA10-1248,CA10-1248 |
| Parties | T.D APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
HONORABLE RHONDA K. WOOD,
JUDGE
MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; REBRIEFING ORDERED
Appellant, a minor, was adjudicated delinquent based on a finding that he committed misdemeanor theft of property; consequently, he was fined and placed on probation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k), appellant's counsel has filed a motion to be relieved and a brief stating that there is no merit to the appeal. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below, including all objections and motions decided adversely to appellant, and a brief in which counsel explains why there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. The clerk of this court attempted to serve both appellant and his guardian with a copy of his counsel's brief and notification of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days, but both letters were returned as undeliverable.
From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we cannot say that the appeal is wholly without merit. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a delinquency case, we apply the same standard of review as in criminal cases; that is, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only the proof that tends to support the finding of guilt. C.H. v. State, 51 Ark. App. 153, 912 S.W.2d 942 (1995). We will affirm if the adjudication is supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence that is of sufficient force and character to compel a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id.
Here, there was evidence that a cell phone was stolen from a backpack while the owner was playing on the visiting team during a middle-school basketball game. The backpack was in an unsecured athletic locker room at Bob Courtway Middle School in Conway, Arkansas. The next day, the school principal reviewed the game-day surveillance video showing the door to the locker room. It showed that appellant and another young man approached the doorway, stood there for a few moments, and entered the locker room. They left the locker room soon thereafter and walked toward the camera. Based on the video, appellant and the other young man were summoned to the principal's office. The other young man admitted having the cell phone, which he surrendered to the principal. He did not implicate appellant.
There was no evidence that appellant took the cell phone. It is true that, when two people assist one another in the commission of a crime, each is an accomplice and criminally liable for the conduct of both; one cannot disclaim accomplice liability simply because he didnot personally take part in every act that made up the crime as a whole. Henson v. State, 94 Ark. App. 163, 227 S.W.3d 450 (2006). However, mere suspicion that a crime has taken place, or presence at the scene of a crime, is not enough to make a person an accomplice. See Perry v. State, 277 Ark. 357, 642 S.W.2d 865 (1982); Roleson v. State, 277 Ark. 148, 640 S.W.2d 113 (1982). Except in extraordinary cases, even presence at the scene of the crime combined with actual knowledge that a crime is being committed is insufficient to make a person an accomplice in the absence of any purpose to further the accomplishment of the offense. See Gate v. State, 270 Ark. 972, 606 S.W.2d 764 (1980).
Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-403 (Repl. 2006) provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial