Opinion ID: 1555883
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the youth court judge erred by failing to direct a verdict in favor of c.k.b.

Text: ¶ 27. C.B. asserts that the youth court erred in failing to direct a verdict in his favor. This is essentially an argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the elements of burglary. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993). ¶ 28. With regard to youth-court delinquency proceedings, this Court has said: An adjudication of delinquency is not a criminal conviction; however, the standard of proof to support a determination that a youth is a delinquent child is the same as for the criminal conviction of an adult, i.e., proof of all of the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Interest of J.P.C., 783 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.2000). ¶ 29. C.B. was adjudicated a delinquent for burglary of a dwelling under Mississippi Code Section 97-17-23, which states, in relevant part: Every person who shall be convicted of breaking and entering the dwelling house or inner door of such dwelling house of another, whether armed with a deadly weapon or not, and whether there shall be at the time some human being in such dwelling house or not, with intent to commit some crime therein, shall be punished by commitment to the custody of the Department of Corrections.. . . Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-23(1) (Supp.2009). ¶ 30. The evidence in this case consisted of a low-resolution, home-surveillance video approximately four or five minutes in length and optimally viewed at approximately the size of a three-by-five-inch photograph. People appear on this video for only a few minutes. The video shows four individuals, three black males and one white male, walking down a street at such a distance that they cannot be identified by facial features. Other closer-proximity scenes show what appears to be two of those same individuals, one black male and one white male, jump a fence into a back yard and approach a back door of a home. After apparently kicking the back door, the two individuals jump the fence and run back toward the street where they encounter a third individual. ¶ 31. The only evidence of C.B.'s presence in the vicinity of the home was Davis' testimony that C.B. was one of the individuals merely walking down the street. However, on cross-examination, Davis admitted that he could not identify the faces of any of the four individuals walking down the street in the first portion of the video. When the video was played at the hearing during Davis' testimony, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: I'm looking at little birdies fly across the pavement. They're cute little birdies. Precious little birdies. Little doves. Ah, here we go. A. There's a defendant coming into view now. This is M.T., Your Honor. THE COURT: How do you know that? A. And Mr. B. MS. CARROLL: Objection. THE COURT: How do you know that? How do you know that, Captain? A. My familiarity with them and the clothes that they were wearing that day. THE COURT: Oh. Well, I guess he can give his opinion. I overrule the objection. Now we're going to a different view? A. Yes, sir. ¶ 32. However, as discussed below, Davis was not certain of what C.B. was wearing and confiscated no clothing from C.B. Further, on cross-examination, Davis testified: Q. Can you stop it right there? I guess stop it when you can see all four faces. A. I don't see all four faces. Q. Right. So, at this point, you can't identify who those four people are. Those are just four people walking by. A. I can. Q. You can identify them? A. Yes, sir. Q. Stop it, sir, and show me where you see the four faces that you can identify. A. (No response by witness) MR. WILSON [PROSECUTOR]: Judge, what he . . . Q. What are you looking at him for, sir? I'm the one examining you . . . THE COURT: He has already told you he can't get all four faces. So now what's your next question? He's already said that. MR. SMITH: (continuing cross-examination) Q. All right. Go ahead, sir. Continue. You and I both agree that there were four bodies? A. Yes. Q. Thank you, sir. ¶ 33. Davis later testified that, despite being unable to identify their faces, he was able to identify the four individuals because he was familiar with them from previous dealings. ¶ 34. Davis identified Pritchett, wearing shorts and a light blue shirt, and C.H., wearing a white-hooded sweatshirt (hoodie), as the two individuals who jumped the fence and approached the door. Davis further identified Pritchett as the adult and as the more aggressive one in physically opening the door. ¶ 35. As to C.B., Davis was merely asked what the person he believed to be C.B. on the video appeared to be wearing. Davis neither identified the clothing C.B. was wearing that day when arrested nor did he confiscate any clothing from C.B. Q. Who was wearing similar clothing in the tape that you observed? A. Mr. H. and Mr. T. Q. Okay. What was Mr. H. wearing in the tape? A. He was wearing a white hoodie similar to one I removed from the house. Q. And what was Mr. T. wearing? A. Mr. T. was wearing the jeans similar to the ones that I removed from the house. Q. Is that the long jeans or the shorts? A. Long jeans. Q. Thank you. Did you see what Mr. B. was wearing on the tape or appeared to be? Could you tell? A. Yes. It appeared that he was wearing some shorts. Q. Okay. But you don't know if those are similar or the same or can . . . A. It's not these shorts. I did not take Mr. B.'s clothes. ¶ 36. During cross-examination about his report that the four individuals left the scene together, Davis acknowledged that only three individuals were still present. Q. . . . I'll go on to another question, Officer. It says here at the very bottom, all four subjects then walked west from the residence onif I pronounce thatGinger Avenue, yet the video clearly shows that only three of them left. Is that correct? When you looked at that video. What happened to the fourth guy? A. (No response). Q. The video that you just saw showed the two jumping over the fence meeting with one man. You've charged four people. What happened to the fourth guy? A. The video also shows, Counselor, that the other guy walked the other way. ¶ 37. At the close of the adjudication hearing, the youth court found that the case is insufficient against Mr. H [identified by Davis as jumping the fence and assisting Pritchett with kicking the door open]. He is ordered released to the custody of his mother. The other two defendants [4] are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [5] ¶ 38. C.B. asserts that the prosecution failed to adduce admissible evidence relevant to each essential element pursuant to Lee v. State, 756 So.2d 744, 748 (Miss. 1999). ¶ 39. Harrison County asserts that: The first element of the crime was proven by three key pieces of evidence: The video which shows the back door being kicked in, the confession of C.K.B., and the corroborating testimony of Captain Davis and Susan Barnes. . . . Accepting as true the evidence that supports guilt, namely, the confession, and giving the State the benefit of any reasonable inferences; namely, that the minor in the video is in fact C.K.B., the state provided sufficient evidence such that a reasonable juror could find the defendant was guilty. ¶ 40. As discussed in issue three, C.B.'s uncorroborated confession, which is contrary to the video, is insufficient to support adjudication. Davis admitted he could not identify C.B. as one of the individuals walking down the street. Davis said he identified C.B. by clothing, but had only a general idea of what the person he identified as C.B. appeared to be wearing on the video. Further, Davis did not specifically identify or confiscate any clothing from C.B. Most importantly, Davis admitted that C.B. was not one of the individuals who had jumped the fence and kicked in the door. Further, Barnes did not identify C.B. as an individual involved in any burglary. ¶ 41. There is no evidence in the record of C.B. breaking and entering the dwelling house or inner door of a dwelling house. There is also no evidence in the record that C.B. had any intent to commit any crime therein. Therefore, neither element of burglary was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there was insufficient evidence to adjudicate C.B. a delinquent child. For these reasons, we find that the trial court erred in not granting the directed verdict.