State ex rel. J.P.

280 So.3d 245

STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF J.P.

NO. 2019-CA-0542

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2019

Tenee Felix, LOUISIANA CENTER FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, 1100-B Milton Street, New Orleans, LA 70122, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

Leon Cannizzaro, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Donna Andrieu, Chief of Appeals, Scott Vincent, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, ORLEANS PARISH, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Dale N. Atkins )

Judge Rosemary Ledet

This is a juvenile delinquency case. The juvenile, J.P.¹ 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.

BACKGROUND

On 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.

After 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 appeal followed.

ERRORS PATENT

We have 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.

DISCUSSION

In her 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 (1979).

In 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 of due process of law. Id. at 1310. "[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence." State v. Smith , 600 So.2d 1319, 1324 (La. 1992).

In Louisiana, the Jackson standard defines the minimum review required in juvenile proceedings by the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution; Louisiana law imposes a broader standard of review. See State ex rel. D.R. , 10-0405, p. 14 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/13/10), 50 So.3d 927, 935 (observing that "a child adjudicated a delinquent in Louisiana is entitled to a broader scope and standard of review than the minimum required by the Due Process clause").

Consistent with the understanding that juvenile delinquency proceedings are civil in nature, Louisiana courts review the sufficiency of the evidence in juvenile cases under a hybrid of the Jackson standard applied in criminal cases and the manifest-error standard applied in civil cases. See State in Interest of M.B. , 16-0819, pp. 7-8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/19/17), 217 So.3d 555, 562 (observing that "[a]s a result of juvenile delinquency determinations being civil in nature, both the Jackson standard and the manifest-error standard work together to provide juveniles with constitutionally adequate appellate review.") Accordingly, we must determine whether, viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the juvenile court committed manifest error in finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that J.P. committed a simple burglary.

Simple burglary is "the unauthorized entering of any dwelling, vehicle, watercraft, or other structure, movable or immovable, or any cemetery, with the intent to commit a felony or any theft therein." La. R.S. 14:62(A). The intent required for simple burglary is "the specific intent to commit either a felony or a theft at the time of his unauthorized entry." State v. Marcello , 385 So.2d 244, 245 (La. 1980). Specific criminal intent is "that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act." La. R.S. 14:10(1). Absent an admission by the defendant, specific intent "must necessarily be proven by inferences from surrounding facts and circumstances." State v. Duncan , 390 So.2d 859, 861 (La. 1980).

In this case, there was no direct evidence that, upon entering the vehicle, J.P. did so either without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or a theft. Thus, to adjudicate J.P. delinquent, the juvenile court was required to infer from the circumstantial evidence that J.P. entered the vehicle without authorization and that she did so with the intent to commit a felony or theft. As this court has observed:

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, such evidence must consist of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. State v. Shapiro , 431 So.2d 372 (La. 1982). The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from the Jackson reasonable doubt standard; rather, it is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Wright , 445 So.2d 1198 (La. 1984). All evidence, direct and circumstantial, must meet the Jackson reasonable doubt standard. State v. Jacobs , 504 So.2d 817 (La. 1987).

State v. Brown , 12-0626, pp. 6-8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/10/13), 115 So.3d 564, 570-71 ; see also State v. Robinson , 442 So.2d 827, 830 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1983) (citing La. R.S. 15:438 ) (observing that when intent, like any other element, is proven by circumstantial evidence, "every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded").

The evidence in this case consisted exclusively of Detective Alcala's testimony and the surveillance video. In adjudicating J.P. delinquent, the juvenile court acknowledged as much, stating:

So today I'm going to see if that detective's information is enough. I am going to adjudicate you delinquent based on the fact that the detective saw you in the vehicle, the detective recognized you from the video footage, that you were on the campus, that the person did not give you permission to enter into their vehicle. That a police report was generated, that the New Orleans Police were contacted, and you were in the video. So let's see what happens. So you are adjudicated delinquent for simple burglary.

In light of this evidence, we address the issues of authorization and intent separately.

Authorization

As noted above, Detective Alcala was the State's only witness. Although she testified that she interviewed the owner of the vehicle during the course of her investigation, Detective Alcala did not testify whether the owner had authorized J.P. to enter the vehicle. Instead, the juvenile court inferred the lack of authorization from the following colloquy between the juvenile court and Detective Alcala:

THE COURT: At the time that you were able to discuss with the alleged victim, not disclosing anything that the victim said to you, at any time when you observed the video footage and the person that you determined to be the victim, did you ever see the victim give permission to Ms. Parker to be in her vehicle?

MS. ALCALA: No.

THE COURT: Did you ever see the victim open their vehicle and allow Ms. Parker to enter their vehicle?

MS. ALCALA: No.

THE COURT: Did you ever see the victim use their key fob from the school to open their vehicle in order to allow Ms. Parker to enter the vehicle?

MS. ALCALA: No.

This exchange, however, was insufficient to exclude the possibility that the victim had authorized J.P. to enter the vehicle.²

The surveillance video does not cure this insufficiency; to the contrary, the surveillance video suggests that J.P. and her companion may have had some relationship with the vehicle. The surveillance video shows two individuals walking on a sidewalk bordering a parking lot...