With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". factual findings of the juvenile court, especially regarding the credibility of witnesses, we are not bound by them. In re J.D.F., 553 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Iowa 1996). We presume the child is innocent of the charges, and the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the delinquent acts. Iowa Code § 232.47(10) (2011). Our review of the juvenile court’s admission of other-acts evidence is for an abuse of discretion. J.A.L., 694 N.W.2d at 751. The State argues that our de novo standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence for juvenile adjudications is inappropriate and unwarranted by Iowa Code chapter 232. The State contends that although our caselaw has long held that our review is de novo and that we consider the facts anew to determine (<HOLDING>). While the State accurately describes the

A: holding that direct and circumstantial evidence are to be given the same weight when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
B: holding that a habeas court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence underlying a criminal conviction must determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt  emphasis added
C: holding review of sufficiency of evidence of juvenile adjudication is same as reviewing substantial evidence to support a criminal conviction
D: holding that in reviewing sufficiency of evidence in juvenile adjudication the appellate court considers the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and affirms if those inferences constitute substantial evidence
C.