FROM JUVENILE COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2018-354-03-DQ-C,
SECTION "C" HONORABLE CANDICE BATES ANDERSON,
FELIX LOUISIANA CENTER FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COUNSEL FOR
CANNIZZARO DISTRICT ATTORNEY DONNA ANDRIEU, CHIEF OF APPEALS
SCOTT VINCENT ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ORLEANS PARISH
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge
Dale N. Atkins
ROSEMARY LEDET JUDGE.
a juvenile delinquency case. The juvenile, J.P. appeals her
adjudication and disposition for simple burglary. For the
reasons that follow, we reverse the adjudication and
disposition and dismiss the petition with prejudice.
April 24, 2018, the New Orleans Police Department
("NOPD") received a report of a simple burglary of
a silver Nissan Altima located in a parking lot at Delgado
Community College ("Delgado") in New Orleans,
Louisiana. The following day, April 25, 2018, NOPD Detective
Nicole Alcala collected from Delgado surveillance video
purporting to capture the burglary. From the video, Detective
Alcala recognized one of the alleged perpetrators as J.P.,
with whom Detective Alcala had had previous encounters.
Detective Alcala issued a warrant for J.P.'s arrest, and
J.P. was subsequently arrested.
J.P.'s arrest, the State filed a delinquency petition
charging J.P. with simple burglary, a violation of La. R.S.
14:62(A). J.P. entered a denial, and the case proceeded to
trial on May 7, 2019. At the conclusion of trial, the
juvenile court adjudicated J.P. delinquent. The same day, the
juvenile court entered a disposition, reprimanding J.P. This
reviewed the record for errors patent. State ex rel.
A.H., 10-1673, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/20/11), 65 So.3d
679, 685 (observing that, in juvenile cases, and pursuant to
La. Ch.C. art. 104 and La.C.Cr.P. art. 920, "conducting
an error patent review in juvenile delinquency proceedings is
warranted"). We find none.
sole assignment of error, J.P. contends that the evidence is
insufficient to support her adjudication for simple burglary.
Although juvenile delinquency proceedings are not criminal in
nature, due process requires that the State prove every
element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25
L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). Due process also requires that the
sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial be reviewed
under the well-settled standard announced in Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560
State v. Brown, 12-0626, pp. 6-8 (La.App. 4 Cir.
4/10/13), 115 So.3d 564, 570-71, we set forth the
Jackson standard as follows:
In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient
to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine
whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560
(1979); State v. Green, 588 So.2d 757 (La.App. 4th
Cir. 1991). However, the reviewing court may not disregard
this duty simply because the record contains evidence that
tends to support each fact necessary to constitute the crime.
State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988). The
reviewing court must consider the record as a whole. If
rational triers of fact could disagree as to the
interpretation of the evidence, the rational trier's view
of all the evidence most favorable to the prosecution must be
adopted. The fact finder's discretion will be impinged
upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the
fundamental protection ...