Case Name: STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of Rowan WILLIAMS
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1976-01-06
Citations: 325 So. 2d 854
Docket Number: No. 12690
Parties: STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of Rowan WILLIAMS.
Judges: Before PRICE, HALL, BOLIN, MARVIN and GLADNEY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 325
Pages: 854–858

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of Rowan WILLIAMS.
No. 12690.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Jan. 6, 1976.
Rehearing Denied, En Banc, Feb. 9, 1976.
Watson & Watson by Philip B. Watson, Jr., St. Joseph, for appellant.
Thompson L. Clarke, St. Joseph, for ap-pellee.
Before PRICE, HALL, BOLIN, MARVIN and GLADNEY, JJ.
Marvin, J., dissented; Smith, J., recused.

Opinion:
PRICE, Judge.
This appeal was originally argued and submitted to a panel of three judges, a majority of whom decided the judgment appealed from should be modified or reversed. Pursuant to Louisiana Constitution Article V, Section 8(B) (1974), the case was reargued before a panel of five judges.
This is an appeal from the decree of the Sixth Judicial District Court acting in its capacity as Juvenile Court for Tensas Parish, declaring Rowan Williams, age 15, a delinquent child under the provisions of L. S.A.-R.S. 13:1570, and ordering his commitment to the Department of Corrections for an indefinite time. The petition initiating this proceeding, filed on January 30, 1975, alleges Williams is subject to the provisions of the statute defining a delinquent child in that he "did commit one act of burglary (Article 62, Criminal Code, State of Louisiana) in that during the night of Monday, November 25, 1974, he and another did illegally enter Testa's Exxon Service Station and did take approximately $168 in cash and silver ($53 in one dollar bills, $35 in five dollar bills, and $80 in silver). He also took the entire cash register."
This court is granted appellate jurisdiction of all matters appealed from the juvenile courts except criminal prosecutions of adults by Article 5, Section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. This constitutional authority extends the scope of review to both the law and the facts.
Therefore, it is our constitutional duty to review the evidence presented by the State to determine if the trial court's finding was based on sufficient evidence to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the juvenile committed the act of burglary for which he was adjudged a delinquent. This standard of proof is required by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970).
In its attempt to prove the participation of Williams in the burglary, the State relies on the testimony of an alleged accomplice, Joseph McTear, Jr., another juvenile who had previously confessed to the burglary and who had been committed to the Louisiana Training Institute. At the time of his testimony, McTear was also under a pending charge of attempted rape.
The weight to be accorded the testimony of an accomplice is stated in State v. Lewis, 236 La. 473, 108 So.2d 93 (1959) as follows:
"Although the testimony of an accomplice, even though uncorroborated, is competent evidence, it is well settled that such evidence is subject to suspicion and should be received and acted upon with extreme or at least grave caution. State v. Feroci, 167 La. 78, 118 So. 699; State v. Matassa, 222 La. 363, 62 So.2d 609."
The testimony of McTear reflects that the idea to commit the burglary was his alone, and that he allegedly approached Williams to accompany him only a few minutes prior to the commission of the act. He admits they were not friends and had not discussed this matter previously at school. It was further established, the two boys had once had an altercation during and after football practice the preceding fall season.
It appears that McTear did not implicate Williams during his initial interrogation nor at the time of his adjudication as a delinquent. As we understand the record, this accusation against Williams occurred at about the time McTear was subsequently charged with attempted rape.
The only other evidence of a substantive nature presented by the State was the testimony of the owner of the station, Louis Testa, who described the method of entry and the amount of money believed to be in the cash register.
The father, grandfather and grandmother of the juvenile testified he was at home at all times on the night of the occurrence of the alleged burglary. Testimony of two of Williams' teachers was offered to show his good school record and general good character.
We conclude that the testimony of McTear when judged in the light of his record and all other surrounding circumstances shown by the record is not sufficient without other corroborating evidence to constitute proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" of the participation of Williams in the burglary and that the trial court erred in its adjudication based on the evidence before it.
For these reasons, the adjudication of the delinquency of Rowan Williams is annulled and vacated, and the petition of the State in the interest of the juvenile is dismissed.
Annulled and vacated.
MARVIN, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
GLADNEY, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by MARVIN, J.