that other states and federal jurisdictions apply the same standard of review to sufficieney-of-the-evidence claims in juvenile cases as in criminal cases. These other jurisdictions have reasoned that because the State has the same “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden in both juvenile and adult criminal proceedings, the standards and scope of appellate review should also be the same in juvenile and criminal proceedings. See United States v. DeLeon, 768 F.2d 629, 631 (5th Cir.1985) (concluding standard of review of federal juvenile adjudication is whether, viewing evidence in light most favorable to the government, a reasonable fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the juvenile committed the alleged act); In re Jose D.R., 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 186 Cal.Rptr. 898, 901 (1982) (<HOLDING>); In re W.C., 167 Ill.2d 307, 212 Ill.Dec. 563,
holding that the standard of proof in revocation proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence holding standard of review in juvenile adjudications is same as in criminal convictions because standard of proof below is identical in the two proceedings holding the standard of proof in summary judgment rulings is the same as it would be at trial holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability actions is the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict