APPEAL FROM THE OPELOUSAS CITY COURT, PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. JV9886. HONORABLE VANESSA HARRIS, CITY COURT JUDGE.
ADJUDICATION AND DISPOSITION VACATED. REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
Annette Roach, Louisiana Appellate Project, Lake Charles, LA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: J. C. R.
C.J. " Rusty" Ashley, II, Assistant District Attorney, Opelousas, LA, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: State of Louisiana.
Court composed of Marc T. Amy, John E. Conery, and David Kent Savoie, Judges.
[14-1146 La.App. 3 Cir. 1]
On February 28, 2014, the State filed a petition alleging that the Juvenile, J.C.R., had violated La.R.S. 14:54.6, communication of false information regarding a planned bombing on school property. Thus, the petition prayed that he be adjudicated a delinquent. On July 16, the adjudication hearing began in Opelousas City Court, and the second day of the hearing was July 24. The final day of the hearing was August 13.
On September 3, 2014, the court held a dispositional hearing and ordered the Juvenile to serve thirty-six months, suspended, with active supervised probation for twenty-four months and a number of special conditions, including an 8 p.m. curfew.
The Juvenile now seeks review by this court, assigning four errors. For the following reasons, J.C.R.'s adjudication and disposition is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
On February 26, 2014, an Opelousas 911 operator received a telephone call that indicated there was a bomb at Opelousas Junior High School. One of the Juvenile's classmates testified that the Juvenile borrowed his phone on the day the bomb threat was made. The Juvenile took the phone into the school's locker room; when he returned it, its screen showed that it was in " emergency mode." Another classmate testified he was in the locker room and heard the Juvenile make the bomb threat.
[14-1146 La.App. 3 Cir. 2] ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE
In his first assignment of error, the Juvenile argues the evidence adduced against him at the hearing below was insufficient to support his adjudication as a delinquent. The analysis for such claims is settled:
When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195, 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979); State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559 (La.1983); State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982); State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981). It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibility of the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court should not second guess the credibility determinations of the triers of fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino, 436 So.2d 559 ( citing State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983)). In order for this Court to affirm a conviction, however, the record must reflect that the state has satisfied its burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Kennerson, 96-1518, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695 So.2d 1367, 1371.
We are unable to conduct the analysis, as video and audio exhibits played during the adjudication hearing were not entered into evidence and thus are not part of the record on appeal. The recordings were clearly important. Various witnesses were asked by the State to identify themselves and the Juvenile on the video recording or to identify his voice on the audio recording from ...