IN THE INTEREST OF A. C., a child.
BARNES, P. J., McMILLIAN and MERCIER, JJ.
appeals his adjudication of delinquency by the juvenile court
on one count of theft by receiving stolen property. As his
sole enumeration of error, A. C. asserts that the evidence
was insufficient to support the juvenile court's
determination. We disagree and affirm.
reviewing the delinquency adjudication in this case, "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 juvenile committed the
acts charged." (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
In the Interest of D. D., 310 Ga.App. 329, 330-31
(1) (713 S.E.2d 440) (2011). We must also "keep in
mind that it is for the trier of fact, not this Court, to
weigh this evidence, resolve any conflicts in the evidence,
and assess the credibility of witnesses." (Citations and
punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of H. A., 311
Ga.App. 660, 661 (716 S.E.2d 768) (2011).
viewed, the evidence showed that a white GMC 2500 was stolen
from Allen Strickland's business at approximately 2:00
a.m. on the morning of April 17, 2015. The next day, a
lieutenant with the Valdosta Police Department, while
responding to a reported burglary in progress, was notified
to be on the lookout for a white pickup truck in the area of
the purported burglary. The lieutenant spotted a truck
matching the description in the report and began to follow
it. He lost sight of the truck briefly, and when he saw it
again it was sitting empty in the street, with the doors on
both the passenger's and driver's sides standing
open. The lieutenant then observed two males running
northwest, about 50 to 100 feet away, one of whom was wearing
a red T-shirt and light-colored blue jean shorts. He called
in his location and a description of what he had observed,
including the suspects' clothing.
officer with the Valdosta Police Department heard the
lieutenant's description of the two male suspects. He was
also on the way to the burglary-in-progress call, with his
police dog, and thus he was in the lieutenant's vicinity.
Within 20-30 seconds of hearing the description, the officer
spotted A. C., wearing a red shirt, red socks, and
light-colored shorts, walking by the side of nearby railroad
tracks, approximately 40 yards from where the truck was
abandoned. A number of railroad employees, who were working
within sight of the abandoned truck, were pointing to A. C.
The officer jumped out of his police car and deployed his
police dog to track A. C. When they caught up with A. C., the
officer placed him in handcuffs. Another officer returned A.
C. to the location of the truck, where the lieutenant was
still processing the scene. The lieutenant testified that A.
C. looked like one of the males he saw running away from the
truck, "down to the clothing" he was wearing. The
white truck was later identified as the one taken from
Strickland's business. Based on this evidence, the
juvenile court adjudicated A. C. guilty on the charge of
theft by receiving the stolen GMC truck.
argues that this evidence was insufficient to support the
juvenile court's adjudication of delinquency because it
merely showed his presence in the vicinity of the truck.
"Mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient
to convict one of being a party to the crime, but presence,
companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are
circumstances from which one's participation in the
criminal intent may be inferred." (Citation and
punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of B. R., 289
Ga.App. 6, 7 (1) (656 S.E.2d 172) (2007). Thus, for example,
"flight is always a circumstance which may be considered
in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused."
the lieutenant observed two males running from a stolen
truck, which had been left in the street with its doors
hanging open, and conveyed their description to other
officers, who, within seconds, observed A. C. wearing
clothing matching the description and walking within sight
distance of the truck. The lieutenant later confirmed that A.
C. and his clothing matched the individual he had seen
running away from the stolen truck. We find that the evidence
was sufficient to support the trial court's adjudication
of delinquency based on the charge of theft by receiving the
GMC truck. See In the Interest of R. J. S., 277
Ga.App. 74, 75 (625 S.E.2d 485) (2005) (finding evidence
sufficient where juvenile fleeing the scene was apprehended
by police based on clothing description and victims
subsequently identified juvenile based on that clothing);
In the Interest of S. D. T. E., 268 Ga.App. 685, 687
(1) (603 S.E.2d 316) (2004) (witness testimony identifying
juvenile by his clothing as one of the individuals who had
fled the scene where stolen cars were located sufficient to
show he was a party to the crime).
Barnes, P J, and Mercier, J, concur.
 The juvenile court also found A. C.
not guilty on one count of burglary of a residence and a
separate count of theft by receiving a second truck that was
stolen at the same time as the GMC truck, finding the