IN THE INTEREST OF D.E.P., JR., GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE v. D.E.P., JR

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 31, 2024
• Docket: SD38420
• Status: Published

Opinion

In Division

IN THE INTEREST OF D.E.P. JR., ) GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE,) ) Respondent, ) No. SD38420 ) v. ) Filed: October 31, 2024 ) D.E.P. JR., ) ) Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY

Honorable Douglas A. Hosmer, Judge

AFFIRMED

Introduction

This appeal involves an adjudication of juvenile delinquency. In

December 2023, a manager at a Price Cutter grocery store discovered money

missing from the store. Surveillance footage from the store showed an employee,

D.E.P. Jr. ("Juvenile"), ringing up refunds for items that were never sold. After

ringing up these refunds, Juvenile would pocket the cash or credit the value of the

items to his debit card. Juvenile was charged in the juvenile division of the circuit court ("the

juvenile division") with conduct that would constitute the class D felony of

stealing if Juvenile were an adult. See § § 211.031 and 570.030.1 The juvenile

division held a hearing. At that hearing, Juvenile admitted he made the

transactions but claimed he did so because his manager threatened to kill him

and his family if he did not.

After the hearing, the juvenile division found the Juvenile Office produced

sufficient evidence to prove that Juvenile committed what would have constituted

the class D felony of stealing beyond a reasonable doubt if Juvenile had been an

adult, and the juvenile division ordered Juvenile to be committed to the Division

of Youth Services.

Juvenile appeals from that judgment. In a single point, Juvenile argues

the juvenile division erred in finding the Juvenile Office met its burden as to the

stealing count because there was insufficient evidence. 2 Finding no merit to this

argument, we affirm the judgment.

The Evidence

The juvenile division heard testimony by a Price Cutter manager

("manager") and Juvenile.3 The parties stipulated to the admission of 52

1 All statutory citations are to RSMo Cum. Supp. (2023).Juvenile's appeal only involves Count 1 of the amended petition. Juvenile was also charged with a second count of stealing, misdemeanor possession of an illegal weapon, and misdemeanor property damage. Those counts are not relevant to this appeal.

2 Juvenile's point also argues the juvenile division's finding that the juvenile office had met its

burden was against the weight of the evidence. This is a separate claim of error which should have been raised in a separate point. Because we are able to discern the nature of Juvenile's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we address that claim only.

3 Other witnesses testified at the hearing, but their testimony is not relevant to the issue raised in

this appeal. 2 "refund" receipts for the transactions made by Juvenile, the video surveillance

footage of Juvenile making the transactions, and Juvenile's bank records.

Manager testified that a corporate bookkeeper for Price Cutter informed

him of some discrepancies in transaction histories from the store. Manager

began investigating the matter by checking all return transactions for the prior

month and tracking those returns with camera footage to see if they were

legitimate or fraudulent. Manager discovered Juvenile, an employee of the store,

was going through the system and ringing up items in a certain amount to do a

return. Juvenile would then pocket the cash or credit the value of the items to his

personal debit card. During these transactions, Juvenile was not interacting with

a customer, which would be the normal practice for making a return, and did not

have permission to take money from the store. The total value of these

transactions was $2,150.85.

Juvenile did not deny making the transactions. Instead, he claimed

Manager taught him how to make the fraudulent returns. According to Juvenile

he would obtain the cash or electronically-transferred funds and would give the

funds to Manager at a later date, sometime after Juvenile was to resign from his

position. Juvenile claimed he made the transactions because Manager

threatened to kill him, his family, and other individuals.

Standard of Review

We review juvenile proceedings in the same manner as court-tried cases.

D.C.M. v. Pemiscot Cty., Juvenile Office, 578 S.W. 3d 776, 786 (Mo. banc

2019). This means we will affirm a judgment in a juvenile proceeding unless it is

not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or 3 erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. In reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-

evidence challenge, we consider the evidence, including all reasonable inferences

therefrom, in the light most favorable to the judgment, disregarding all contrary

inferences. Id. "When a juvenile is alleged to have committed an act that would

be a criminal offense if committed by an adult, the standard of proof, like that in

criminal trials, is beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.

Analysis

Juvenile was alleged to have committed an act that, if committed by an

adult, would have constituted the class D felony of stealing. A person commits

the offense of stealing if he or she appropriates property or services of another

with the purpose to deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent

or by means of deceit or coercion. § 570.030.1(1). The offense is a class D felony

if the value of the property or services appropriated is $750 or more.

§ 570.030.5(1).

Juvenile does not argue that any of the elements of the class D felony were

not met. Rather, he argues the Juvenile Office "failed to overcome the affirmative

defense of duress presented by [Juvenile] through his testimony."

Duress is an affirmative defense that a defendant engaged in the conduct

charged "because he or she was coerced to do so, by the use of, or threatened

imminent use of, unlawful physical force upon him or her or a third person,

which force or threatened force a person of reasonable firmness in his situation

would have been unable to resist." § 562.071. A defendant bears the burden of

persuasion with respect to an affirmative defense. State v. Balbirnie, 541

S.W.3d 702, 711 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). "The burden of persuasion is a party's 4 duty to convince the fact-finder to view the facts favorably to that party."

Letterman v. Director of Rev., 412 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013).

Juvenile's argument is without merit because it is nothing but an

invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and ignores our standard of review.

Juvenile testified he made the transactions because Manager threatened to kill

him. This testimony was rebutted by Manager, who testified he never threatened

Juvenile. It was for the circuit court to decide whose testimony to believe or

disbelieve.4 "Reliability, credibility, and the weight afforded to witness testimony

are all for the fact-finder to determine." State v. Hankins, 531 S.W.3d 77, 80

(Mo. App. S.D. 2017). We will not reweigh evidence on appeal or make credibility

determinations. State v. Stewart, 640 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022).

Juvenile's point is denied.

Conclusion

The judgment is affirmed.

MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS

JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS

4 While the juvenile division did not make any express credibility findings, we assume that all

facts were found in accordance with the result reached. State v. Johnstone, 486 S.W.3d 424, 435 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016).