Delinquency, Adjudication of

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.

Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Decisions of the Tennessee Court Appeals

State of Tennessee v. S.L. E2021-00418-COA-R3-JV, p. 2-3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2022).

 An adjudication of delinquency requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. § 37-5-103(2) (2014) (“Adjudication of delinquency” means “that a juvenile court has found beyond a reasonable doubt that a child has committed a delinquent act.”); see also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368 (1970). On appeal, S.L. argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication of delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, his adjudication of delinquency must be set aside. See TENN. R. APP. P. 13(e); State v. Roberts, 106 S.W.3d 658, 662-63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

A finding of guilt “destroys the presumption of innocence and imposes a presumption of guilt.” State v. Wilson, 211 S.W.3d 714, 718 (Tenn. 2007). So, on appeal, “the defendant has the burden of illustrating why the evidence is insufficient.” State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). The State is entitled to “the strongest legitimate view of the evidence” and “all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn” from the evidence. State v. Davis, 354 S.W.3d 718, 729 (Tenn. 2011) (citations omitted). We do not reweigh the evidence “or substitute [our] inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact.” State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279 (Tenn. 2000). “Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given the evidence, and factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact.” State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 857 (Tenn. 2010).

Evidence is sufficient if, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); accord State v. Parker, 350 S.W.3d 883, 903 (Tenn. 2011). The standard of review “is the same whether the conviction is based upon direct or circumstantial evidence.” State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011) (citations omitted).

State of Tennessee v. S.L.,  No.  E2021-00418-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2022).

A  finding  of  guilt  “destroys  the  presumption  of  innocence  and  imposes  a presumption of guilt.”   State v. Wilson, 211 S.W.3d 714, 718 (Tenn. 2007).  So, on appeal, “the  defendant  has  the  burden  of  illustrating  why  the  evidence  is  insufficient.”    State  v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997).   The State is entitled to “the strongest legitimate view of the evidence” and “all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn” from the evidence.   State v. Davis, 354 S.W.3d 718, 729 (Tenn. 2011) (citations omitted).  We do not reweigh the evidence “or substitute [our] inferences for those drawn by the trier of  fact.”    State  v.  Smith,  24  S.W.3d  274,  279  (Tenn.  2000).    “Questions  concerning  the credibility  of  witnesses,  the  weight  to  be  given  the  evidence,  and  factual  issues  raised  by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact.”   State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850, 857 (Tenn. 2010).

Evidence  is sufficient if,  “after  viewing the evidence in the light  most favorable to the  prosecution,  any  rational  trier  of  fact  could  have  found  the  essential  elements  of  the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”   Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979);  accord State v. Parker, 350  S.W.3d 883, 903 (Tenn. 2011).   The standard of review  “is the same whether the conviction is based upon direct or circumstantial evidence.”   State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011) (citations omitted).