This is аn appeal from the Order entered October 23, 1985, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, committing the appellant tо the Youth Development Center at New Castle, Pennsylvania. Bеcause the evidence was insufficient to support an аdjudication of delinquency we reverse the trial court’s order and discharge the appellant.
A delinquency petition was filed against the appellant on September 26, 1985, charging him, аlong with a co-defendant, with receiving stolen property, 18 Pа.C.S.A. § 3925; unauthorized use of an auto, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3928; conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903; and lеaving the scene of an accident, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3745. The charges resulted from the theft of a Trans Am Pontiac automobile in the City of *324 Pittsburgh. Aрpellant was previously adjudicated delinquent on September 23, 1985, of failure to adjust in an institution, however, disposition was defеrred to October 23, 1985, pending a hearing on the September 26, 1985 рetition. Upon dispositional hearing held on October 23, 1985, the аppellant was committed to the Youth Development Center at New Castle.
On appeal, the appellant сontends and the Commonwealth agrees, that there was insufficient competent evidence to support the adjudication of delinquency.
Judge Smith made appropriate reference to the Commonwealth’s burden and this court’s scope of review of the sufficiency of the evidence when she wrote in her opinion:
The Court is mindful of the requirements in juvenile proceedings which by law are to be conducted in an informal but orderly manner (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6336), and in viewing the sufficiency of evidence to sustain an adjudication, the test enunciated by our Courts is: "... whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to the Cоmmonwealth, there is sufficient evidence to find every elemеnt of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt ... The Commonwеalth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial еvidence ...” Com. v. Shirey, [333 Pa.Super. 85 ],481 A.2d 1314 , 1343 (Pa.Super.1984). Cf. In Re Johnson, [445 Pa. 270 ],284 A.2d 780 (Pa.Super.1971), and Com. v. Jones, [300 Pa.Super. 338 ],446 A.2d 644 (Pa.Super.1982).
Appellant acknowledges that sufficient evidence was adduced at his delinquency hearing to support thе trial court’s finding that the offense charged had been committed however, appellant contends that the evidence adduced was insufficient to establish him as the perpetrator.
The opinion of the court below, written without the aid of a hearing transcript, offers a substantially accurate acсount of the evidence adduced at the hearing. While the opinion reflects that the eyewitness to the'accident рroduced" ... a *325 description of the driver later identified through invеstigation as Andre LaMore.”, the eyewitness’ testimony offered no description of the appellant.
On the record befоre us, only hearsay evidence, the information provided by the informant to the investigating officer, links appellant to the сonduct which formed the basis for the delinquency adjudication. Thеrefore, the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication.
In Re: Gault,
Order reversed. Appellant is discharged.