FIRST DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

        

THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT.  THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI.  INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

 

DATE: Wednesday, April 2, 2025

CAPTION: IN RE: A.R.

APPEAL NO.: C-240436 

TRIAL NO.: 22/3325-02 Z

KEY WORDS: RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY — POSSESSION — KNOWLEDGE — CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE — INFERENCES — SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT 

SUMMARY: The juvenile’s delinquency adjudication for receiving stolen property was supported by sufficient evidence, and not contrary to the weight of the evidence, where the State’s circumstantial evidence proved that the juvenile used the stolen car for transportation and aided and abetted the driver, including evidence that the juvenile fled alongside two other young men from both the crashed stolen vehicle on the side of an expressway and from bystanders offering assistance. 

The juvenile’s delinquency adjudication for receiving stolen property was supported by sufficient evidence, and not contrary to the weight of the evidence, where the State’s circumstantial evidence proved that the juvenile knew the car was stolen, including evidence that the stolen car’s steering column and rear window had been damaged, the lack of a key in the stolen car, and the juvenile’s flight from both the crashed stolen vehicle on the side of an expressway and from bystanders offering assistance.

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.