State Of Louisiana in the Interest of T.C. ( 2023 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2022 KJ 1284
STATE OF LOUISIANA
IN THE INTEREST OF T.C.
Judgment Rendered: FEB 17 2023
Appealed from the
City Court of East St. Tammany Parish
Juvenile Division
No. 22 JC 2263
The Honorable Bryan D. Haggerty, Judge Presiding
Warren L. Montgomery Attorneys for the State of Louisiana
District Attorney
Matthew Caplan
Assistant District Attorney
Covington, Louisiana
Annette Roach Attorney for Appellant,
Lake Charles, Louisiana T.C.
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., WOLFE AND MILLER, JJ.
WOLFE, I
T.C.,' a sixteen -year- old juvenile, was alleged delinquent by amended petition
on the charge of illegal possession of stolen things valued at $ 25, 000. 00 or more
count 1), a violation of La. R.S. 14: 69( A) and ( B)( 1). She denied the allegation.
Following an adjudication hearing, she was adjudged delinquent for illegal
possession of stolen things valued at less than $ 25, 000. 00, a violation of La. R.S.
14: 69( A) and (B)( 2). Following a disposition hearing, she was placed in the custody
of the Office of Juvenile Justice for thirty- six months with all but nine months
suspended.
T.C. now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and raising
the issues of her counsel' s conflict of interest and double jeopardy. For the following
reasons, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency on count 1, vacate the disposition
on count 1, and order the juvenile released on that charge. Additionally, we note that
certain other counts originally listed on the juvenile petition were dismissed after
jeopardy attached.
FACTS
On June 28, 2022, between approximately 12: 30 and 12: 45 a.m., while working
as an Uber driver, the victim, Khaled Radwan, drove his 2022 Toyota Highlander to
pick up a lady with a suitcase in the area of Ursuline and Derbigny Streets in New
Orleans. When he arrived and stepped out ofhis vehicle at the lady' s request to assist
her with her suitcase, he was robbed of his vehicle by a man armed with a gun, who
left with the lady. Thereafter, the robbers and another man returned to the scene and
shot Radwan after he gave them the key fob for the vehicle' s keyless ignition. T.C.
and her juvenile co- defendant, C.D., were arrested after police observed them seated
in the stolen vehicle, which was recovered in Slidell.
Pursuant to Rules 5- 1( A)( 3) and 5- 2 of the Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, we reference
the minors by their initials.
2
At the adjudication hearing, Radwan testified the incident happened " fast," and
the street he stopped on was dark, such that he could not see exactly what the robbers
looked like. He got the best look at the gunman who was close by when threatening
him. T.0 and C.D. were both in the courtroom, and Radwan stated, "[ i] t' s that young
lady," and " the little lady who was the one standing up[,]" when asked to identify the
lady with the suitcase who was involved in the incident. It is not clear from the record
whether Radwan was referring to T.C. or C.D. Radwan testified he was fifty percent
sure of his identification.
Detective Ben Williams with the Slidell Police Department testified that he was
contacted on June 28, 2022, in reference to a Toyota Highlander with GPS tracking
that was reported stolen after being involved in a carj acking and possible homicide. At
10: 25 a.m., he observed the vehicle near John Slidell Park in Slidell and notified other
law enforcement agencies to respond to the area. Detective Williams testified that as
the tactical team was making contact with the vehicle at 11: 15 a.m., T.C. remained in
the driver' s seat, but C.D. exited the vehicle and started to enter the gymnasium. C.D.
was subsequently taken into custody along with three adult males. Handguns were
recovered from the front and rear seats of the vehicle and from one of the adult males.
None of the windows on the vehicle were broken and there was no obvious damage to
the steering column or the ignition. When asked what direct evidence established that
T.C. and C.D. knew the vehicle was stolen, Detective Williams replied that "they were
sitting in a stolen, car asked vehicle." He conceded he did not know if either of the
juveniles had been " picked up" after the vehicle was stolen.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In assignment of error number one, T.C. contends the evidence was insufficient
to establish that she intentionally possessed stolen property. The State concedes the
evidence does not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that T.C. knew or should have
known that the vehicle was stolen.
3
In a juvenile adjudication proceeding, the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the child committed the delinquent act alleged in the petition. La. Ch. Code
art. 883. The burden of proof is no less severe than the burden of proof required in an
adult proceeding. Accordingly, in delinquency cases, the standard of review for the
sufficiency of evidence is that enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319,
99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ( 1979), i.e., whether viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
State proved the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See La.
Code Crim. P. art. 82 12 ; State in Interest of T.C., 2018- 1246 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
12121118), 269 So.3d 716, 718. In conducting sufficiency review, we must be
expressly mindful ofLouisiana' s circumstantial evidence test, which pertinently states
that in order to convict, the evidence, " assuming every fact to be proved that the
evidence tends to prove ... must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence."
La. R.S. 15: 438; State v. Currie, 2020- 0467 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2122121), 321 So. 3d
978, 982.
In order to adjudicate a juvenile delinquent of possession of stolen property, the
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: ( 1) the property was stolen; ( 2) the
property was of value; ( 3) that the defendant knew or should have known that the
property was stolen; and ( 4) that the defendant intentionally possessed, procured,
received or concealed the property. State in Interest of J.W., 2012- 0049 ( La. App.
4th Cir. 6/ 6/ 12), 95 So.3d 1187, 1190, writ denied, 2012- 1497 ( La. 1118113), 107 So.3d
625. Illegal possession of stolen property is a general intent crime. Id.The mere possession of stolen property does not give rise to a presumption that
the person in possession of the property received it with knowledge that it was stolen
from someone else. Therefore, the State must prove the defendant' s guilty knowledge
2
In a delinquency proceeding, the court shall proceed in accordance with the Louisiana Code
of Criminal Procedure if specific procedures are not provided by the Louisiana Children' s Code.
See La. Ch. Code art. 803.
0
as it must prove every other essential element of the offense. Nevertheless, the fact
finder may infer guilty knowledge from the circumstance of the offense, i.e., that
defendant knew " or had good reason to believe" that the goods in her possession had
been stolen. La. R.S. 14: 69( A) ( emphasis added).
The statute permits a purely
objective inquiry into the element of guilty knowledge. State v. Calloway, 2007- 2306
La. 1121109), 1 So.3d 417, 422.3
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, review of the law and facts is
constitutionally mandated; therefore, an appellate court must review the record to
determine if the juvenile court was clearly wrong in its factual findings. See La.
Const. art. 5, § 10. After doing so, we find the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that T.C. committed the delinquent act alleged in the petition. The juvenile court
was clearly wrong in finding that the State sufficiently established the identity of the
juvenile as the robber with the suitcase where Radwan identified the robber as " the
little lady who was the one standing up" but indicated he viewed this perpetrator only
briefly and expressed no more than fifty percent confidence in his identification.
Accordingly, the State failed to negate a reasonable probability of misidentification.
Moreover, as the State admits on appeal, the evidence failed to prove T.C. knew
or had good reason to believe the vehicle was stolen. Absent proof of participation in
the robbery of the vehicle, the State had to show that a reasonable person would have
known that the vehicle was stolen. However, nothing about the vehicle suggested it
had been stolen. There were no objective indicia, such as damage to the vehicle, signs
of forced entry, broken windows, damage to the ignition, or screwdrivers in the vehicle,
indicating the vehicle was stolen. Compare State in Interest of T.W., 2015- 262 ( La.
App. 5th Cir. 9/23115), 175 So. 3d 504, 510.
3
See also Reporter' s Comment to La. R.S. 14: 69, which states, " The element of knowledge
of the offender that the goods were of the described nature when he received them has given
considerable difficulty. Must the offender subjectively know, or is he taken to know what any
reasonable person so situated would have known? This section adopts a completely objective test
here, because of the difficulty of proof by the prosecution."
5
Finding, as conceded by the State, that there was insufficient evidence to support
the adjudication, we reverse T.C.' s adjudication of delinquency, vacate the disposition,
and order T.C. released on this charge.' Our resolution of assignment of error number
one causes us to pretermit consideration of the remaining assignments of error.
ADJUDICATION OF DELINQUENCY ON COUNT I REVERSED;
DISPOSITION ON COUNT I VACATED; AND JUVENILE ORDERED
RELEASED ON COUNT I.
4
C. D. separately appealed her delinquency adjudication and also challenged the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the adjudication. For the same reasons expressed herein, this court
reversed the delinquency adjudication, vacated the disposition, and ordered C. D.' s release. See
State in Interest of C.D., 2022- 1285 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 219123), 2023 WL 1943132 ( unpublished).
rol