In the Interest of W. B.

564 S.E.2d 816, 255 Ga. App. 192, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 1373, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 559
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 30, 2002
DocketA02A0122
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 564 S.E.2d 816 (In the Interest of W. B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In the Interest of W. B., 564 S.E.2d 816, 255 Ga. App. 192, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 1373, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 559 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Blackburn, Chief Judge.

Following a full hearing in the juvenile court, W. B. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for simple battery, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication. We affirm.

In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an adjudication of delinquency, we construe the evidence and every inference from the evidence in favor of the juvenile court’s adjudication to determine if a reasonable finder of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the juveniles committed the acts charged.

In the Interest of S. P.1 See also Jackson v. Virginia.2 An appellate court does not determine the weight of the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Interest of G. J.3

A person commits simple battery when he or she either intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with another person or intentionally causes physical harm to another. OCGA § 16-5-23 (a). The evidence, in this case, viewed with every inference in favor of the adjudication of delinquency, clearly establishes that the elements of simple battery were satisfied.

Viewed in this light, the record shows that the Waterford Home Owners’ Association asked its security guard, Mike Bailey, to speak with a large group of males refusing to get out of the roadway at the entrance to the subdivision. Bailey drove the security cart up to a group of males in the roadway. Jamal Driver, a juvenile and one of the males, was cursing Bailey and refused to speak with him when Bailey told him that he wanted to take him home to speak with his [193]*193parents. Driver walked, but Bailey followed. Bailey placed Driver in the cart. W. B., whom Bailey knew because his mother had lived in the subdivision, then came up the street in a “very aggressive manner” and refused the commands of Bailey to stay away. Bailey grabbed W. B. for his safety and to hold or place him on the ground. Driver jumped on Bailey’s back, and W. B. began striking him. Bailey suffered a deep abrasion to his knee. Bailey and Driver as well as several other witnesses for the defense testified at the trial.

Decided April 30, 2002. Sullivan & Sturdivant, Harold A. Sturdivant, Michele W. Ogle-tree, for appellant. William T. McBroom III, District Attorney, James E. Sherrill, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

In this case, the evidence was sufficient for the juvenile court, as finder of fact, to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment affirmed.

Johnson, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In the Interest of B. B.
680 S.E.2d 497 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
In Re BB
680 S.E.2d 497 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
In re E. J.
642 S.E.2d 179 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
564 S.E.2d 816, 255 Ga. App. 192, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 1373, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-w-b-gactapp-2002.