AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a child appellant who was adjudicated delinquent for acts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and disorderly conduct. The child appellant contested the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his adjudication, arguing that his actions were a justified response to the officer's inappropriate conduct.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication for the delinquent acts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and disorderly conduct. The appellant also contended that his actions were justified responses to the officer's inappropriate conduct (para 2).
• Appellee: The appellee's arguments are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the appellee argued for the sufficiency of the evidence and against the appellant's justification for his actions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the child appellant's adjudication for the delinquent acts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and disorderly conduct.
• Whether the child appellant's actions were justified responses to the officer's conduct.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication of delinquency for the child appellant's acts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and disorderly conduct (para 3).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Timothy L. Garcia, James J. Wechsler, and Michael E. Vigil, unanimously affirmed the adjudication of delinquency. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the adjudication, referencing the substantial evidence standard of review which considers whether a reasonable person would find the evidence adequate to support a conviction. The Court also addressed the appellant's argument regarding the officer's conduct, emphasizing that the factfinder was free to reject the child appellant's version of events. The decision to affirm was based on the principle that it is within the factfinder's purview to resolve conflicts in testimony and determine the credibility of witnesses (paras 1-3).