Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 13-0220
01-09-2014
IN RE VICTOR Z.
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott By Michael Daniels Counsel for Appellee Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer, P.C., Anthem By Florence M. Bruemmer Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300JV201300054
The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott
By Michael Daniels
Counsel for Appellee
Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer, P.C., Anthem
By Florence M. Bruemmer
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Randall M. Howe, presiding, delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.
HOWE, Judge:
¶1 Victor Z. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for assault because he believes the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he acted recklessly. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 A.B., S.B., and Issac were at a McDonalds. Earlier that day, Issac and Victor had been rude to each other. Issac saw Victor at McDonalds and began to taunt him. Issac said, "Come at me" to Victor, and Victor began to chase the group. Victor chased the group across the street and elbowed A.B. in the abdomen. A.B. was in pain and saw a doctor that night. A.B.'s parents called the police, and after interviewing A.B., the officer referred Victor for assault. A petition for delinquency was filed against Victor alleging that he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused physical injury to A.B. in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1).
¶3 At the contested adjudication hearing, A.B. testified that she believed that Victor hit her on purpose. S.B. testified that Issac had taunted Victor and Victor became irritated and that is why he chased the group. S.B. believed that Victor was chasing Issac and not necessarily the group. S.B. thought that A.B. fell after Victor hit her, but did not see her fall. S.B. believed that Victor hit A.B. accidentally by trying to get A.B. out of the way so he could get to Issac.
¶4 The court found that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Victor recklessly caused injury to A.B. Victor was adjudicated delinquent of assault and filed this appeal.
DISCUSSION
¶5 Victor argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he acted recklessly because the witness testimony was contradictory. Although S.B. testified that she believed A.B. had fallen because she saw her on the ground, A.B. did not testify that she fell during
the incident. S.B. testified that Victor only chased one individual, but A.B. testified that Victor chased the entire group of people. S.B. testified that she believed Victor accidentally hit A.B., but A.B. testified that Victor hit her on purpose.
¶6 Weighing the evidence and resolving any conflicts is the juvenile court's responsibility, Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334 ¶ 4, 100 P.3d 943, 945 (App. 2004), and discrepancies in testimony go to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency, see Baroldy v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 157 Ariz. 574, 583, 760 P.2d 574, 583 (App. 1988). This Court will not re-weigh the evidence on appeal and will view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the adjudication. In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424, 426 ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 772, 774 (App. 2001). This Court will reverse for insufficient evidence only if there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the judgment or if the judgment is contrary to the substantial evidence. Id.
¶7 Although the testimony was contradictory, the juvenile court resolved the conflict in favor of A.B. and found that Victor recklessly injured A.B. The juvenile court was entitled to do so. See State v. Munoz, 114 Ariz. 466, 469, 561 P.2d 1238, 1241 (App. 1976) ("Although the appellant's and victim's version of the events are contradictory, the jury believed the victim, and her testimony alone provides sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction."); see also State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228, 231 ¶ 6, 99 P.3d 43, 46 (App. 2004) ("Although the record contains some conflicting evidence, it was for the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses."). Thus, sufficient evidence supported the juvenile court's delinquency finding.