S.V. v. State (In re S.V.)

S.V. v. State (In re S.V.)

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of S.V., a person under eighteen years of age.

______________________________

S.V.,

Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20030478-CA

F I L E D

(November 26, 2004)

2004 UT App 443

-----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Andrew A. Valdez

Attorneys: Sam N. Pappas, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Matthew D. Bates, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Greenwood.

DAVIS, Judge:

S.V., a juvenile, appeals the juvenile court's determination that the allegation in the State's petition that S.V. had committed burglary is true. We affirm.

S.V. argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's adjudication that S.V. had committed each element of burglary.

When reviewing a juvenile court's decision for sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider all the facts, and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, in a light most favorable to the juvenile court's determination, reversing only when it is against the clear weight of the evidence, or if the appellate court otherwise reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

In re J.W., 2001 UT App 208,¶7, 30 P.3d 1232 (quotations and citation omitted). The conviction, however, "must be supported by a quantum of evidence concerning each element of the crime as charged from which the [factfinder] may base its conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Andreason, 2001 UT App 395,¶4, 39 P.3d 982 (alteration in original) (quotations and citation omitted). Under Utah law, "[a]n actor is guilty of burglary if he enters or remains unlawfully in a building or any portion of a building with intent to commit . . . theft." Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-202(1)(b) (2003).

The court based its ruling on the following facts. A witness who lived near the victim's home heard breaking glass and observed two individuals dressed in dark clothing throwing rocks at a home. The neighbor called the police, and Officer Hendricks arrived at the victim's home approximately five minutes later. Officer Hendricks discovered a broken window and noticed a muddy footprint on the front door, which was apparently left by someone attempting to kick in the door. Officer Hendricks then heard noise in the victim's backyard, where he observed two individuals who appeared to be in their early teens and who fit the description given by the neighbor. The two teens fled the scene while Officer Hendricks called out, "Stop, police."

Officer Hendricks radioed to other officers for help, and they soon apprehended the teens, one of whom was S.V. The teens matched the description given by both the neighbor and Officer Hendricks. Officer Hendricks drove to where the other officers had apprehended S.V., and Officer Hendricks identified S.V. as one of the suspects he had seen fleeing the victim's backyard. Both teens were wearing muddy shoes and muddy clothing.

Officer Hendricks returned to the victim's home and discovered that it was in disarray. Someone had tracked mud into the home and had gathered some of the victim's belongings in bags by the door.

The court reasonably inferred from photos taken of the interior of the victim's home that "somebody was in that home trying to take property out of the home." The court concluded, therefore, that someone had committed a burglary at the victim's home. Based upon the evidence, the court further determined that S.V. had participated in the burglary.

We conclude that the evidence presented to the juvenile court and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom support the court's determination that S.V. had committed each element of the crime of burglary, either as a principal or an accomplice. Therefore, S.V.'s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails.

Affirmed.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge