Opinion
2 CA-JV 2022-0057
09-21-2022
In re Delinquency of J.C.
Laura Conover, Pima County Attorney By Tyler Campman, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for State Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Minor
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. JV20210219 The Honorable Bunkye Olson, Judge Pro Tempore
Laura Conover, Pima County Attorney By Tyler Campman, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for State
Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Minor
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, VICE CHIEF JUDGE
¶1 J.C., born June 2004, appeals from the juvenile court's order adjudicating him delinquent and its disposition. He asserts there was insufficient evidence supporting the court's conclusion he had committed assault in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1). We affirm.
¶2 In August 2021, A.P. reported that, while she was at school, J.C. had approached her from behind and choked her. She developed bruises on her neck. J.C. denied having choked A.P. The state filed a delinquency petition alleging J.C. had committed misdemeanor assault. After a hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated J.C. delinquent. At the disposition hearing, the court imposed several consequences, including a community-service requirement and that J.C. participate in an anti-bullying program. This appeal followed.
¶3 On appeal, J.C. attacks the sufficiency of the evidence that he had committed assault. He correctly notes that A.P. testified the attack had taken place in a classroom with at least seven other students present, but only one student-B.H.-apparently saw the attack. J.C. asserts that because it is "incredible that no other student in the room besides B.H." saw him choke A.P., and because evidence suggested a lack of animosity between him and A.P., the juvenile court erred in adjudicating him delinquent.
¶4 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court's adjudication. In re Jessi W., 214 Ariz. 334, ¶ 11 (App. 2007). To determine whether there was sufficient evidence, we consider only whether "a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt," In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JT9065297, 181 Ariz. 69, 82 (App. 1994), and we will not disturb the court's order unless "there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the judgment or if the judgment is contrary to any substantial evidence," In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, ¶ 7 (App. 2001).
¶5 J.C.'s argument on appeal is nothing more than a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JV-132905, 186 Ariz. 607, 609 (App. 1996). The juvenile court expressly found A.P. and B.H. were credible, and we will defer to that determination. See id. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a victim may sustain a conviction. State v. Williams, 111 Ariz. 175, 177-78 (1974). And here, A.P.'s testimony was corroborated not only by B.H. but by her injuries. The evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's delinquency finding.
¶6 We affirm the juvenile court's order adjudicating J.C. delinquent and its disposition.