Case Name: STATE of Utah, in the interest of L.R.C., A Person Under Eighteen Years of Age. L.R.C,, Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee
Court: Utah Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 2016-03-17
Citations: 369 P.3d 138
Docket Number: No, 20140466-CA
Parties: STATE of Utah, in the interest of L.R.C., A Person Under Eighteen Years of Age. L.R.C,, Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee.
Judges: Judge GREGORY K. ORME authored this Memorandum Decision, in which Judges J, FREDERIC VOROS JR. and. KATE A. TOOMEY concurred. . ,
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 369
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
2016 UT App 51
STATE of Utah, in the interest of L.R.C., A Person Under Eighteen Years of Age. L.R.C,, Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee.
No, 20140466-CA.
Court of Appeals of Utah.
March 17, 2016.
Margaret P. Lindsay and Douglés J. Thompson, Attorneys for Appellant.
Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City and Cherise M. Bacalski, Attorneys for Appellee.
Judge GREGORY K. ORME authored this Memorandum Decision, in which Judges J, FREDERIC VOROS JR. and. KATE A. TOOMEY concurred. . ,

Opinion:
Memorandum Decision
ORME, Judge:
T1 LRC. was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court for failure to stop at police command, a class A misdemeanor if commit ted by an adult, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-805.5 (LexisNexis 2012); possession of, drug paraphernalia, a class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult, see id. § 58-87a-5(1)(a)-(b); and possession or use of marijuana, also a class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult, see id. § 58-87-8(@)(@)G), (d) (Supp. 2015). On appeal, LRC. argues that the juvenile court committed plain error by admitting hearsay testimony, L.R.C.'s challenge to the admissibility of evidence is legally indistinguishable from the same issue that was presented in the appeal taken by his brother, with whom he was adjudicated below. See In re J.C., 2016. UT App 10, 1 8, 366 P.3d 867. For the reasons stated in In re J.C., we affirm the Juvemle court's adjudication of LR.CJ - _. .
. Unlike in In re J.C., 2016 UT App 10, 366 P.3d 867, where the appellant also challenged the adequacy of the evidence supporting his adjudication, see id. TN 13, 28-29, LR.C. does not challenge the adequacy of the evidence supporting the adjudication as to him.. And the observation made by Judge Voros in In re J.C. applies with equal force in the instant case. See id, 132 (Voros, J., concurring).