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 Defendant and a 14-year-old girl entered a Wal-Mart, where they were observed by a loss prevention officer in the clothing section, seemingly watching employees. The minor picked up jeans and a t-shirt while facing the Defendant, and they both exited the store without paying for the items. The Defendant claimed unawareness of the minor's actions until they were stopped by a Wal-Mart employee (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence for the conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, claiming unawareness of the minor's shoplifting actions until after being stopped by a Wal-Mart employee (para 3).
• Appellee (State): Asserted that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction, demonstrating that the Defendant acted as a lookout for the minor during the shoplifting incident (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
• Whether the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for her shoplifting conviction should be granted.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and denied the motion to amend the docketing statement regarding the shoplifting conviction challenge (paras 3, 4, 6).

Reasons

• Zamora, J. (with Vigil, J., and Vanzi, J., concurring): The Court found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, noting the Defendant's potential role as a lookout during the shoplifting incident. The Defendant's contrary evidence, claiming unawareness of the minor's actions, was not sufficient for reversal. Regarding the shoplifting conviction challenge, the Court denied the motion to amend the docketing statement as the issue was not raised initially and was deemed not viable. The jury instructions and the evidence presented satisfied the elements required for the Defendant's shoplifting conviction under the accomplice liability theory (paras 2-5).