State Of Louisiana in the Interest of T.C.

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