B.C.R. v. State
B.C.R. v. State
Opinion of the Court
The appellant, B.C.R., a 16-year-old, was adjudicated delinquent on the underlying offense of criminal mischief in the second degree, § 13A-7-22,
The evidence presented at the hearing tended to show that on January 9, 1993, a 1967 Ford Mustang automobile belonging to J.W.
The day of the incident was not the first time that the appellant and J.W. had difficulties over M.B. About one month prior to this incident, on an occasion when the appellant was at J.W.’s house, the appellant asked J.W. to fight him over M.B. J.W. refused.
The appellant raises only one issue on appeal. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to find that he violated § 13A-7-22, Code of Alabama 1975. Specifically, he states that all the evidence against him was merely circumstantial and not sufficient to find him guilty of criminal mischief in the second degree. Judge Bowen, in Cumbo v. State, 368 So.2d 871 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), cert, denied, 368 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979), set out the standard that this court utilizes when reviewing a case based on circumstantial evidence:
“In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, this court must view that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude.”
Cumbo, 368 So.2d at 874. (Citation omitted.)
“Circumstantial evidence is not inferior or deficient evidence. See Linzy v. State, 455 So.2d 260 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). ‘Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence, provided it points to the guilt of the accused.’ Casey v. State, 401 So.2d 330, 331 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981).’ ”
Holder v. State, 584 So.2d 872, 875-76 (Ala. Cr.App. 1991).
In this ease, the judge was sitting as the finder of fact. “Whether circumstantial evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime excludes, to a moral certainty, every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the defendant’s guilt is a question for the jury [or the finder of fact].... ” Cumbo, 368 So.2d at 875. There is no reason to disturb the court’s judgment here. The circumstantial evidence, as set out above, was sufficient to support a finding that the appellant was guilty of criminal mischief in the second degree.
The court’s adjudication of delinquency is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
. Both the appellant and the state, in their briefs, contend that the appellant was adjudicated guilty on the underlying offense of criminal mischief in the first degree. The record shows that the court adjudicated the appellant guilty of criminal mischief in the second degree. The damage in the case was not proven to exceed $1000.00.
. The anonymity of the teenagers involved in this case is being preserved according to Rule 52, A.R.App.P.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.