A juvеnile court adjudicated minor M. C. delinquent for acts of aggravated sodomy and child molestation. M. C. appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the adjudication and establishing venue, and the admission of child hearsay statements. But because there was enough evidence from which the juvenile court was authorized to find beyond a reasonable doubt that M. C. had committed the delinquent acts and that venue had been established, and because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the child hearsay statements, wе affirm.
1. Sufficiency of the evidence.
In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an adjudication of delinquency, we construethe evidence and every inference from the evidence in favor of the juvenile court’s adjudication to determine if a reasоnable finder of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the juvenile committed the acts charged. Thus, the standard of review on appeal in a case of adjudication of delinquency of a juvenile is the same as that for any criminal casе. In reviewing such cases, we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.
In the Interest of M. L.,
So construed, the evidence shows that the 11-year-оld victim told his mother that M. C. was making him go into a bedroom, take off his clothes and perform sexual acts. The mother contacted the police and gave a statement indicating that the victim had told her that M. C. had “put his thing in [the victim’s] butt.” During a forensic interview, the victim again stated that M. C. hаd put his penis in the victim’s “butt.” In describing the incident, the victim stated that no one else was home at the time, that M. C. had closed the bedroom door, that M. C. had pulled down the victim’s pants, that M. C. had touched the victim’s “butt” with his hands, that'M. C. then stood behind him and put his penis “inside” the victim’s “butt,” that M. C.’s penis felt hard and that it hurt.
Citing Elrod v. State,
This evidence was sufficient to authorize [M. C.’s adjudication of delinquency] beyond a reasonable doubt. See OCGA § 16-6-4 (c); Morgan v. State,226 Ga. App. 327 , 329 (2) (486 SE2d 632 ) (1997) (testimony that the defendant put his penis “on the victim’s butt” wаs sufficient to sustain the conviction for aggravated child molestation based upon an act of sodomy); Morgan v. State,191 Ga. App. 279 (381 SE2d 427 ) (1989) (affirming aggravated child molеstation conviction based upon testimony of the victim). See also Bryson v. State, [supra at 37-38 (1) (a)] (victim’s testimony that the defendant had touched the victim’s “behind” with the defendant’s “private part” was sufficient to authorize aggravated sodomy conviction).
(Punctuation omitted.) Prudhomme v. State,
M. C. further claims that there was no evidence of the force required to sustain the aggravated sodomy adjudication. We disagree.
OCGA § 16-6-2 (a) (2) provides in part that a person commits the offense of aggravated sodomy when he or she commits sodomy with force and against the will of the other person or when he or she commits sodomy with a person who is less than ten years of age. Our courts have held that the term force includes not only physical force, but also mental coercion, such as intimidation. Lack of resistance, induced by fear, is force. Moreover, forсe may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. And as with rape, only a minimal amount of evidence is necessary to рrovethat an act of sodomy against a child was forcible.
Boileau v. State,
2. Venue.
“ ‘Cases against juveniles allеging delinquent conduct may be brought in either the county of the juvenile’s residence or the county in which the allegedly delinquent acts ocсurred. OCGA § 15-11-29 (a).’ [Cit.]” In the Interest of J. B.,
3. Child, hearsay.
M. C. contends that the trial court erred in admitting the child hearsay stаtements made by the victim to his mother and the forensic interviewer because they lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. We disagree.
Because M. C.’s adjudicatory hearing occurred before January 1, 2013, former child hearsay statute OCGA § 24-3-16 applies to this case. Whorton v. State,
Under former OCGA § 24-3-16, hearsay statements by underage victims of sexual abuse are admissible in evidence by the testimony of the person or persons to whom made if the child is available to testify in the proceedings and the court finds that the circumstances of the statement provide sufficiеnt indicia of reliability. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of child hearsay evidence, and we will reverse a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of statements under former OCGA § 24-3-16 only if the trial court abused its discretion.
Maurer v. State,
In determining that the circumstances of the victim’s statements provided sufficient indicia of reliability, the juvenile court found, among other things, that after the initial outcries to the victim’s grandmother and mother an appropriate forensic interview was conducted, that there was nothing unusual in the victim’s demeanor and he did not appear to be either detached or overly emotional, that there was no evidence of threats or promises of benefit, that there wаs no evidence of coaching the victim, and that any inconsistencies in the victim’s statements did not render them unreliable. Under these circumstances, “the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the child-hearsay statements.” (Citation omitted.) Whorton, supra at 341 (1).
Judgment affirmed.