In the Matter of the Welfare of: T.L.G., Child.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-2100 In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. L. G., Child. Filed October 28, 2008 Affirmed Stauber, Judge Chippewa County District Court File Nos. 12JV07415; 12JV07609 Lawrence Hammerling, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Bridget Kearns Sabo, Assistant Public Defender, Suite 300, 540 Fairview Avenue North, St. Paul, MN 55104 (for appellant T.L.G.) Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and Dwayne N. Knutsen, Chippewa County Attorney, 102 Parkway Drive, Box 514, Montevideo, MN 56265 (for respondent State of Minnesota) Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Stauber, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION STAUBER, Judge On appeal from his adjudication of delinquency for third-degree criminal damage to property, appellant T.L.G. argues that the state failed to prove that he intended to cause damage. We affirm. DECISION T.L.G. was convicted of third-degree damage to property for shooting out a neighbor s truck window with a BB gun. Although he admits that he shot the window, T.L.G. contends that the state failed to prove that he intended to cause the damage. In a delinquency adjudication, the state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the charged crime. In re Welfare of S.M.J., 556 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Minn. App. 1996). On appeal, our review is limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts and legitimate inferences, a fact finder could reasonably make the determination of delinquency. Id. We review the record in the light most favorable to the adjudication and assume that the fact-finder believed testimony supporting the adjudication of delinquency and disbelieved contrary evidence. Id. In order to convict T.L.G. of third-degree damage to property, the state was required to prove, inter alia, that he intentionally cause[d] damage to another person s physical property. Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 2(a) (2006). Intentionally means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed by the actor, if successful, will cause that result. Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 9(3) (2006). Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence including the defendant s conduct and may be inferred from events occurring before and after the crime. Davis v. State, 595 N.W.2d 520, 525-26 (Minn. 1999). Although a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants stricter scrutiny on review, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence. State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352, 370 (Minn. 1999). [P]ossibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury 2 verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable. State v. Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d 916, 923 (Minn. 1995). T.L.G. contends that [a]ll of the evidence presented by the state to support an inference of intent was entirely consistent with the rational hypothesis that [he] shot out the [neighbor s] truck window by mistake. But after reviewing the record, we are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the adjudication. The district court credited the neighbor s testimony, which supported the inference that T.L.G. fired at the truck window in an effort to cause damage. T.L.G. also admitted that he ran to his home after shooting the window and initially lied to police about his involvement. Cf. State v. Young, 710 N.W.2d 272, 279 (Minn. 2006) (noting that flight from the scene is probative of intent in the context of determining whether a defendant was an accomplice); State v. Nelson, 632 N.W.2d 193, 203-04 (Minn. 2001) (concluding that a defendant who lied to the police had intent to commit a criminal act). And T.L.G. first claimed that he accidentally caused the damage at trial. Although T.L.G. had an innocent explanation for his actions, the district court, as fact-finder, was not obliged to believe his story. See Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d at 923 (stating that the fact-finder is free to question a defendant s credibility and has no obligation to believe it). Because the district court was in the best position to weigh the credibility of the witnesses, and because we must assume that the fact-finder believed testimony supporting the adjudication of delinquency and disbelieved contrary evidence, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the adjudication. Affirmed. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
