In re L.R.C.

2016 UT App 51

Opinion

2016 UT App 51

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.C., A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

L.R.C., Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Memorandum Decision

No. 20140466-CA Filed March 17, 2016

Fourth District Juvenile Court, Provo Department The Honorable Brent H. Bartholomew No. 1031156

Margaret P. Lindsay and Douglas J. Thompson, Attorneys for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and Cherise M. Bacalski, Attorneys for Appellee

JUDGE GREGORY K. ORME authored this Memorandum Decision, in which JUDGES J. FREDERIC VOROS JR. and KATE A. TOOMEY concurred.

ORME, Judge:

¶1 L.R.C. was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court for failure to stop at police command, a class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-305.5 (LexisNexis 2012); possession of drug paraphernalia, a class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult, see id. § 58-37a-5(1)(a)-(b); and possession or use of marijuana, also a class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult, see id. § 58-37-8(2)(a)(i), (d) (Supp. 2015). On appeal, L.R.C. argues that the juvenile court committed plain

In re L.R.C.

error by admitting hearsay testimony. L.R.C.’s challenge to the admissibility of evidence is legally indistinguishable from the same issue that was presented in the appeal taken by his brother, with whom he was adjudicated below. See In re J.C., 2016 UT App 10, ¶ 3. For the reasons stated in In re J.C., we affirm the juvenile court’s adjudication of L.R.C.1

1. Unlike in In re J.C., 2016 UT App 10, where the appellant also challenged the adequacy of the evidence supporting his adjudication, see id. ¶¶ 13, 28–29, L.R.C. does not challenge the adequacy of the evidence supporting the adjudication as to him. And the observation made by Judge Voros in In re J.C. applies with equal force in the instant case. See id. ¶ 32 (Voros, J., concurring).

20140466-CA 2 2016 UT App 51