In the Interest of P.G., Minor Child. P.G., Minor Child, 16-1780

February 12, 2016: P.G., then 17, assaulted E.C., threatened to keep hitting him until E.C. surrendered an Apple Watch worth $700; P.G. later admitted first-degree theft (Feb. incident) and tampering with a witness.
April 1, 2016: At a party at B.A.’s home a small safe (≈16–18" cube) containing about $100,000 in items was taken; bedroom window broken from inside, safe apparently thrown out the window.
Witness T.N. testified he heard a crash, saw a box on the ground, observed P.G. run out, pick up the box, and place it into a red Grand Am; O.R. admitted driving a red Grand Am and giving P.G. a ride but denied seeing a box in his car and admitted drinking.
July 16, 2016: P.G. sent Snapchat messages/photos to T.N. stating “Snitches get stitches” and showing T.N.’s police statement; State charged P.G. with witness tampering for this conduct.
September 1, 2016: P.G. admitted to the February theft and tampering; juvenile court adjudicated P.G. for the April 1 first-degree theft and placed him at the State Training School; P.G. appealed both adjudicatory and dispositional orders.
Before this appeal concluded P.G. turned 18 and was discharged from the State Training School after completing a high‑school diploma.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that P.G. committed first‑degree theft on April 1	P.G. argued the State failed to prove he took the safe: T.N. was unreliable (alleged intoxication); O.R. did not see a box in his car; no direct evidence P.G. possessed stolen items	State relied on T.N.’s eyewitness testimony, broken window and box at scene, P.G. seen placing box in a red car tied to him, and other circumstantial evidence	The court found the State proved theft beyond a reasonable doubt, crediting T.N.’s testimony as most compelling and affirming adjudication
Placement at State Training School	P.G. argued removal from home and placement at the State Training School was unnecessary and disproportionate given his history	State argued placement was appropriate; later noted issue became moot after discharge	Court declined to decide on merits because issue was moot—P.G. was discharged and no justiciable controversy remained

In re J.D.F., 553 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa 1996) (juvenile delinquency proceedings are ameliorative alternatives to criminal prosecution)
In re S.M.D., 569 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 1997) (juvenile delinquency proceedings reviewed de novo)
In re A.K., 825 N.W.2d 46 (Iowa 2013) (State bears burden to prove delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt)
In re D.S., 856 N.W.2d 348 (Iowa 2014) (court examines evidence de novo to determine statutory violation)
In re J.K., 873 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (juvenile court’s objective is the child’s best interests)
In re B.B., 516 N.W.2d 874 (Iowa 1994) (an issue is moot if it no longer presents a justiciable controversy)