State ex rel. J.W.
95 So. 3d 1187, 2012 WL 2043775, 2012 La.App. 4 Cir. 0049 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an adjudication of delinquency for illegal possession of stolen things, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile knew or should have known the property was stolen, as mere possession does not create a presumption of guilty knowledge, and circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Facts:
- On August 22, 2011, Sergeant James Clarkston observed J.W. and an adult female riding bicycles against traffic on Marigny Street.
- Sergeant Clarkston noticed J.W. constantly looking back at him, which piqued his attention and caused him to follow J.W. as he turned onto Burgundy Street.
- As J.W. turned, Sergeant Clarkston saw J.W. drop a backpack from his back.
- J.W. rode toward Sergeant Clarkston as directed, repeatedly denied wrongdoing, questioned the stop, and continued riding at a slow pace before riding away on his bicycle; the female stopped.
- Other officers detained and arrested J.W., and during a pat-down, a camera was discovered in his possession.
- An officer later relocated with the adult female to Montegut Street to locate the owner of the camera, but neither the owner nor his vehicle was found there.
- Approximately six to ten days after the camera was found in J.W.'s possession, the owner, Mitchell Gaudet, identified the camera as his, but he had not reported it stolen and could not identify anyone in the courtroom to whom he would have loaned it.
Procedural Posture:
- J.W. was charged with one count of illegal possession of stolen things in violation of La.R.S. 14:69.
- After a hearing, the trial court (juvenile court) adjudicated J.W. delinquent of illegal possession of stolen things.
- J.W. was ordered to be committed to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections for six months, to run concurrently with a previous delinquent adjudication.
- J.W. timely appealed his adjudication to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, contending there was insufficient evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does mere possession of stolen property, coupled with ambiguous evasive behavior, provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a juvenile knew or should have known the property was stolen, thereby satisfying an essential element for an adjudication of delinquency for illegal possession of stolen things?
Opinions:
Majority - TERRI F. LOVE, Judge
No, mere possession of stolen property, even when coupled with ambiguous evasive behavior, does not provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a juvenile knew or should have known the property was stolen. The court concluded that a rational trier of fact could not have found proof of delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt because the State failed to prove, as required by La.R.S. 14:69, that J.W. knew or should have known the camera was the subject of a theft. The court reiterated that the standard of proof in juvenile delinquency proceedings is no less strenuous than in adult criminal proceedings, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that mere possession of stolen property does not create a presumption of guilty knowledge. While guilty knowledge may be inferred from circumstances, circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (La.R.S. 15:438). The court found the State’s factual claims regarding J.W. discarding the camera in the backpack and fleeing were erroneous; the camera was found on J.W. during a pat-down after the backpack was discarded, and he did not flee after being stopped. Furthermore, the camera's owner had not reported it stolen, and the State's assertion that the adult female knew it was stolen did not prove J.W.'s knowledge. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by Jackson v. Virginia.
Analysis:
This case emphasizes the stringent burden of proof, specifically 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' required for juvenile delinquency adjudications, mirroring adult criminal standards. It significantly clarifies that while the intent element for illegal possession of stolen things can be inferred from circumstances, mere possession of stolen property is not enough to establish the requisite 'guilty knowledge.' This ruling underscores the importance of the State presenting concrete, undeniable circumstantial evidence that thoroughly excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, preventing convictions based on speculation or misinterpretations of facts. For future cases, prosecutors must gather robust evidence demonstrating actual knowledge or strong reason to believe property is stolen, rather than relying on ambiguous behavior or the fact of possession alone.
