This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of the Welfare of:
J.A.A.
Filed September 5, 2000
Swift County District Court
File No. J89950091
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, D. Adrian Bryan, Special Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and
David L. Mennis, Swift County Attorney, 114 - 14th Street North, Benson, MN 56215 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Parker, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
WILLIS, Judge
J.A.A. appeals from his adjudication of careless driving, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subd. 2 (1998). We affirm.
On the evening of April 9, 1999, C.S. and several juvenile guests were standing on the front lawn of her Benson home. At approximately 8 p.m., appellant J.A.A. arrived and parked his car in front of C.S.’s home. C.S. and M.G. later testified that D.H. sat on the hood of the car, with his legs hanging over the edge of the driver’s side of the hood. J.A.A. then began to move the car, and D.H. fell and was injured.
On November 3, 1999, the juvenile court adjudicated J.A.A. delinquent after finding he committed the acts constituting the offense of careless driving, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subd. 2 (1998). J.A.A. appeals.
J.A.A. argues that the evidence before the juvenile court was insufficient to sustain his adjudication of careless driving. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review is limited to determining whether the juvenile court could reasonably have reached its adjudication given the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom. In re Welfare of S.M.J., 556 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Minn. App. 1996). Weview the evidence in the light most favorable to the adjudication and assume that the juvenile court believed all evidence favorable to the adjudication and disbelieved any contrary evidence. Id.
Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subd. 2 (1998), provides:
Any person who operates or halts any vehicle * * * carelessly or heedlessly in disregard of the rights of others, or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger * * * any person, * * * is guilty of a misdemeanor.
J.A.A. argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his adjudication because (1) M.G. testified that she and other persons who were at C.S.’s home had arrived at an agreement regarding what to tell others when asked about the incident, and (2) M.G. testified to facts outside her personal knowledge. But on redirect examination, M.G. testified that she “saw with her own eyes”: (1) D.H. sitting on the hood of J.A.A.’s stopped car after J.A.A. had first arrived, and (2) D.H. sitting on the hood of the car after J.A.A. began to move the car. Additionally, C.S. testified that she saw D.H. sitting on the hood of the car both shortly after J.A.A. had arrived and while the car was in motion. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the adjudication, reasonably supports a finding that J.A.A. began to drive the vehicle while D.H. was sitting on its hood and, therefore, reasonably supports the conclusion that J.A.A. operated his car in a manner that endangered or was likely to endanger D.H., in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subd. 2 (1998).
Affirmed.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.