People v. Nirran W., 207 Cal. App. 3d 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Nirran W., 207 Cal. App. 3d 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …a single errant swing by an intoxicated defendant could, under the language of the statute, result in conviction at p. 1162 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …corroborated doe's testimony that pacheco hit her. ⚠ not in text
40 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Flores CA4/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
(See In re Nirran W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1161-1162 [a single blow to a victim’s face may constitute force likely to produce great bodily injury]; People v. White (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 389, 392 [a single blow to the eye “delivered with great force” supported charge of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury where “the assault was unprovoked and delivered at a time [the victim] was not prepared to protect himself”].) The force of Flores’s punch knocked N.M. to the ground, causing her to temporarily lose consciousness.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Valdez v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(Bryant v. Bakshandeh, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1247 .) When Terrones saw the fistfight, it was reasonable for him to believe he had to stop it because one or both combatants “had a need for immediate medical attention.” First, common knowledge dictates the use of hands or fists can cause great bodily injury (see People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023 , 1037–1038), and a closed-fist punch to the head can cause head and neck trauma, loss of consciousness, and even death (see, e.g., People v. McDaniel (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 736, 749 [facial abrasions, contusions, and scratches, bloody…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bell CA4/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
(In re Nirran W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1159, 1161-1162 [minor knocked victim down with a single blow on left side of her face, causing her injuries to be treated at a hospital for four to five hours, and two months later her teeth still did not meet].) 8 Bell cites several cases affirming aggravated assault convictions where the defendant inflicted multiple blows with the hands or feet and states, “We can take away from these cases that supporting a subsection (a)(4) conviction based only on a single punch is really skating on thin ice.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boelkes CA4/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
The relevant statutes i. Section 245, subdivision (a)(4) Section 245, subdivision (a)(4) provides in relevant part: "Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished . . . ." "Great bodily injury is significant or substantial injury. [Citation.] Permanent or protracted impairment, disfigurement, or loss of function, however, is not required." (People v. Beasley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1087 (Beasley).) "The use of hands or fists alone may be sufficient to support a conviction of assault by means of fo…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pacheco CA6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
(See Nirran W., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 1162 [single blow with a fist to the victim’s head deemed sufficient to support a finding that a defendant used force likely to produce great bodily injury]; People v. Wingo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 169, 177 [“a single errant swing by an intoxicated defendant could, under the language of the statute, result in conviction” for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury]; 2 Those pictures are not in the record on appeal. 9 People v. Score (1941) 48 Cal.App.2d 495 [affirming § 245 conviction where defendant struck victim with fist, then acc…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pacheco CA6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
(See Nirran W., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 1162 [single blow with a fist to the victim’s head deemed sufficient to support a finding that a defendant used force likely to produce great bodily injury]; People v. Wingo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 169, 177 [“a single errant swing by an intoxicated defendant could, under the language of the statute, result in conviction” for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury]; 2 Those pictures are not in the record on appeal. 9 People v. Score (1941) 48 Cal.App.2d 495 [affirming § 245 conviction where defendant struck victim with fist, then acc…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ward CA2/4
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
(Cf. In re Nirran W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1161 [“The use of hands or fists alone may be sufficient to support a conviction of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.”]) Instead, defendant responded in kind, and the two men fought for a period of time using only their fists.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jordan CA2/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
(Accord, In re Nirran W., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 1162 [single punch to the head popping victim’s jaw out, causing her to fall to the ground, and necessitating brief hospital stay; sufficient force to produce great bodily injury].) Defendant levels three categories of attacks at the sufficiency of the evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re F.R. CA2/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
(See In re Nirran W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1161 [rejecting contention that, as a matter of law, one blow to face could not have been likely to cause great bodily injury].) Further, to entertain appellant‘s self-defense claim, we would have to reweigh the evidence and reevaluate the credibility of witnesses, which functions are beyond the scope of our review.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Madrid
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. In re Nirran W., 207 Cal.App.3d 1157 , 255 Cal.Rptr. 327, 329 (1989) (upholding defendant’s felony § 245(a)(1) conviction where he delivered a single blow, without warning and with force sufficient to knock his victim down).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Silva
Cal. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
(In re Nirran W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1161 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 327 ] [defendant struck the victim one time on the side of her face, knocking her down and briefly dislocating her jaw].) 8 Section 273d read as follows: “ ‘Any husband who willfully inflicts upon his wife corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition ... is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years or in the county jail for not more than one year.’ ” (People v. Cameron, supra, 53 Cal.App.3d at p. 790, fn. 1 .)
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fierro (2×)
Cal. · 1991 · confidence medium
(In re Nirran W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1161-1162 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 327 ].) Defendant further asserts that the instructions were flawed because they failed to distinguish between the acts of assault committed by himself and his compatriot.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Zenquis CA4/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Given the patient’s presentation,” the emergency room doctor was “concerned for potentially acute life-threatening illness and evaluation was undertaken to rule out such illnesses” but “there [was] no evidence of intracranial hemorrhage or skull fracture.” Considered in its totality, this evidence was sufficient to establish “more than a mere possibility that the force actually used would result in greater than moderate harm.” (Medellin, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at p. 528; see also In re Nirran W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1157 , 1161–1162 [rejecting defendant’s argument that �…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Vaughn v. Parker
S.D. Cal. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
See People v. Aguilar, 16 17 Cal. 4th 1023 , 1028 (1997) (stating that “the use of hands or fists alone may 18 support a conviction of assault ‘by means of force likely to produce great 19 bodily injury’”); see also In Re Nirran W., 207 Cal. App. 3d 1157 , 1161-62 20 (1989) (noting that a single punch to the jaw may support a finding of assault 21 by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Paul C. (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence medium
(In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 900 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 ].) Applying these principles to this case, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s implied finding that Paul knew the wrongfulness of his conduct. *53 First, Paul was 13 years and 4 months old at the time of the offense. “[I]t is only reasonable to expect that generally the older a child gets and the closer [he] approaches the age of 14, the more likely it is that [he] appreciates the wrongfulness of [his] acts.” (In re Cindy E. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 393, 399 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 812 ]; see also…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re NIRRAN W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
NIRRAN W., Defendant and Appellant
A040011.
California Court of Appeal.
Feb 9, 1989.
207 Cal. App. 3d 1157
Counsel, Michael Jacobowitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant., John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Steve White, Chief Assistant Attorney General, John H. Sugiyama, Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan and Blair W. Hoffman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Merrill.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published

Opinion

MERRILL, J.

By a subsequent petition filed July 31, 1987, the Alameda County District Attorney, under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, alleged that appellant Nirran W. had committed an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). Following the contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found the allegation to be true. The court ordered Nirran placed in his grandmother’s custody under his probation officer’s supervision.

I

The victim, Charlene Rivera, testified that on June 29, 1987, she was driving her car in Oakland when she saw a van driving down the middle of the street, heading straight for her. Although she swerved to the right to avoid the van, it nearly hit her. Rivera stopped her car and then noticed that the van had also stopped. A young woman from the van came running toward her, calling her insulting names. Rivera then observed several other young people exit the van and run toward her. They were yelling and threatening to give her a beating.

Rivera was hit in the head with a stick that was thrown at her by one of the van occupants. The female van driver then apologized to Rivera. As the two were about to shake hands, a young man hit Rivera on the left side of her face. She became dizzy and was knocked under her open car door. She testified that she felt her jaw dislocate but then pop back in. Someone then[*1160] sprayed mace at her face. Rivera received treatment at a hospital for her injuries.

At the jurisdictional hearing Rivera could not identify Nirran as her assailant. However, the van driver and one van passenger testified at the hearing that Nirran was the individual who hit Rivera. Nirran was the only male in the group. At the time of this incident Nirran stood five feet two inches tall and weighed one hundred and five pounds. He was 13 years and 9 months old at the time.

Before resting, the district attorney requested the court take judicial notice of a June 25, 1987, minute order which showed that in the earlier Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 proceeding, just four days before the assault in the instant case, Nirran had been examined and found to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct within the meaning of Penal Code section 26 in connection with a battery committed against a teacher on school property. Defense counsel objected on the grounds that Nirran had not been given advance notice of the request to take judicial notice and that the minute order was irrelevant. The court agreed that Nirran was entitled to notice and offered to continue the proceeding. Defense counsel did not seek a continuance but did ask for time to examine the minute order. After reviewing the minute order, Nirran’s counsel renewed his irrelevancy objection. The juvenile court overruled his objection and took judicial notice of the minute order.

II

Under Penal Code section 26, subdivision One, a child under the age of 14 is presumed incapable of committing a crime “in the absence of clear proof that at the time of committing the act charged against [him], [he] knew its wrongfulness.” (See In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 899 [148 Cal.Rptr. 366, 582 P.2d 957].) Nirran argues that the record discloses insufficient evidence that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct. He charges the juvenile court’s judicial notice of a minute order from a previously sustained Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition does not constitute clear proof of his mental capacity. We hold that the record contains sufficient evidence of Nirran’s appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct.

The minute order revealed that in a June 25, 1987, hearing conducted on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, alleging that he committed a battery on school property (Pen. Code, § 243.2), Nirran was examined pursuant to Penal Code section 26. The juvenile court here reasoned that the court’s earlier acceptance of his admission of the truth of the[*1161] allegation, following such examination, demonstrated that Nirran was found to appreciate the wrongfulness of committing the misdemeanor battery. From such finding the court inferred that Nirran knew the wrongfulness of the assault in the instant petition.

“Evidence of prior petitions sustained for the same olfense is relevant to knowledge of the wrongfulness of conduct and admissible under Evidence Code section 1280 as official records.” (In re Martin L. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 534, 539 [232 Cal.Rptr. 43], italics added, citing In re Harold M. (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 380, 385 [144 Cal.Rptr. 744].) Here the juvenile court considered the relevant evidence that four days before committing the assault against Rivera, Nirran knew the wrongfulness of conduct constituting a misdemeanor battery. The two petitions did not allege identical offenses. However, misdemeanor battery on school property and a felony assault reflect conduct similar enough to permit an inference that a minor cognizant of the wrongfulness of the former would also be cognizant of the wrongfulness of the latter. From such evidence the juvenile court properly inferred that Nirran appreciated the wrongfulness of the conduct alleged in the petition here.

Moreover, the record here reveals that at the time he committed the assault he was three months short of his fourteenth birthday. Age is an important consideration in determining a child’s knowledge of the wrongfulness of his acts. The closer the child is to the age of 14, the more likely it is that he appreciates the wrongfulness of his acts. (In re Cindy E. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 393, 399 [147 Cal.Rptr. 812].) There is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that Nirran appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct.

Ill

The only remaining issue presented by Nirran is that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s finding that he had committed an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. He argues that, as a matter of law, one blow to the face of the victim could not have been likely to cause great bodily injury. We find no merit in this contention.

The use of hands or fists alone may be sufficient to support a conviction of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (People v. Wingo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 169, 176 [121 Cal.Rptr. 97, 534 P.2d 1001], citing People v. Chavez (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 381, 384 [73 Cal.Rptr. 865], and People v. White (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 389, 391-392 [15 Cal.Rptr. 665].) The essential determination is whether the force was likely to pro[*1162] duce great bodily injury rather than the actual injury incurred. (See People v. Rupert (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 961, 967 [98 Cal.Rptr. 203].)

Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court order as we must (In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 277 [186 Cal.Rptr. 898]), we hold substantial evidence supports the finding that Nirran committed an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. The record shows Nirran’s assault was without warning and delivered with great force. The blow to the side of Rivera’s face was sufficient to knock her down just as she and the driver of the van were about to shake hands. The injuries she sustained caused her to be treated at a hospital for four to five hours. She testified that she felt her jaw pop out and then back in. At the time of the jurisdictional hearing almost two months later, her teeth still did not meet. Despite his slight stature, Nirran clearly delivered the blow with sufficient force likely to produce great bodily injury.

IV

The judgment is affirmed.

White, P. J., and Barry-Deal, J., concurred.