J.G.F. claims that the evidence in his case was circumstantial and, without other criteria being met, is insufficient to support a delinquency adjudication. J.G.F. claims that the evidence that he and his friends broke into Smith's apartment is circumstantial, arguing that the damage to the door could have been done by Smith's roommate. J.G.F. also says that the stereo receipt in J.G.F.'s cousin's sock was evidence of their intent to buy the stereo, not evidence of intending to steal it. J.G.F. also argues that his fleeing the state was not evidence of guilt, but of his fear of being wrongly linked to a burglary. J.G.F. focuses his argument of insufficiency of the evidence on that evidence proving his intent to burglarize.
Intent is an element of the first-degree burglary offense charged here.
J.G.F. argues that the primary evidence showing his intent was the discussion regarding purchasing Smith's stereo. He contends that such evidence does not show criminal intent to burglarize. Circumstantial evidence was not the sole type of evidence in this case. Smith also identified J.G.F. after chasing and hitting him with a crowbar in Smith's apartment, and the state presented photographs of the door frame. Further, the inference taken from the sum of the circumstantial evidence is consistent with J.G.F.'s delinquency and inconsistent with any other rational inference.