contested jurisdictional hearing in California

2024During the contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court granted the district attorney’s request to amend count 1 to remove that victim, thereby conforming the allegation to the evidence presented. 5 In In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855 (Gladys R.), our Supreme Court “conclude[d] that the juvenile court should consider whether a child appreciates the wrongfulness of her conduct in determining whether the child should be declared a ward under section 602.” (Id. at p. 858.) 6 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 . 4 rendered “problematic” a conclusion that such a minor understood the

2018Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition and found true the allegation that I.F. personally used a knife in the commission of the crime. *465 I.F. appeals, arguing the juvenile court erroneously admitted his pre-arrest statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ( Miranda ).

2026(Id. at p. 836.) We observed that in Steven B., supra, 25 Cal.3d 1 , our Supreme Court “[w]riting in the rather limited context of a contested jurisdictional hearing and an appeal challenging sufficiency of the evidence, … concluded that in juvenile cases ‘there is no adequate substitute for a complete record’ 8. and that a new jurisdictional hearing was required.” (Ian J., at p. 837.) But we noted “the Supreme Court went to some length in its opinion to show that the minor suffered actual prejudice on the facts before it.” (Id. at p. 838.) We concluded “Steven B. does not set forth a special

2026(Id. at p. 836.) We observed that in Steven B., supra, 25 Cal.3d 1 , our Supreme Court “[w]riting in the rather limited context of a contested jurisdictional hearing and an appeal challenging sufficiency of the evidence, … concluded that in juvenile cases ‘there is no adequate substitute for a complete record’ 8. and that a new jurisdictional hearing was required.” (Ian J., at p. 837.) But we noted “the Supreme Court went to some length in its opinion to show that the minor suffered actual prejudice on the facts before it.” (Id. at p. 838.) We concluded “Steven B. does not set forth a special

2023First, it provides “a record from which the maximum term of physical confinement for an offense can be determined, particularly in the event of future adjudications.” (Manzy W., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 1205 .) Second, it “serves the purpose of ensuring that the juvenile court is aware of, and actually exercises, its [statutory] discretion.” (Id. at p. 1207.) The juvenile court may make the declaration at the contested jurisdictional hearing or at the dispositional hearing.

2014These determinations may be deferred until the disposition hearing.” (Italics added.) The same express declaration is required by rule 5.780(5) after a contested jurisdictional hearing and at the disposition hearing “[u]nless determined previously … .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.795(a); cf. rule 5.790(a)(1).) In In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199 (Manzy W.), the California Supreme Court observed that the express declaration requirement of section 702 serves at least two 10 purposes.

2022I concur: HULL , J. 4 Unlike the father in In re Wilford J., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at pages 746 through 747 and 754, mother did not waive this objection by participating in this case after the jurisdictional hearing.

2022I concur: HULL , J. 4 Unlike the father in In re Wilford J., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at pages 746 through 747 and 754, mother did not waive this objection by participating in this case after the jurisdictional hearing.

2021To justify an act of self-defense the belief in the need to commit the act “must both subjectively exist and be objectively reasonable.” (People v. Brady (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1008, 1014 .) On appeal from the juvenile court’s adjudications after a contested jurisdictional hearing, “ ‘[t]he test is whether substantial evidence supports the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.] Our sole function is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] The standard

2020Section 243.4, subdivision (e)(1) provides in relevant part: “Any person who [1] touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is [2] against the will of the person touched, and is [3] for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery . . . .” “[T]he sexual battery statute’s use of the phrase touching ‘for the specific purpose of . . . sexual abuse’ encompasses a purpose of insulting, humiliating, intimidating, or physically harming a person sexually by touching an ‘intimate part’ of the person . . . .” (In

2021(People v. Rios (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 542, 568 .) A trial court’s credibility determinations “are subject to extremely deferential review.” (See Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570 , 582.) Here, the juvenile court sustained the allegation of battery on a peace officer after finding not credible A.M.’s testimony that she feared her mother was in imminent danger of choking to death at the officer’s hands.

2020Section 243.4, subdivision (e)(1) provides in relevant part: “Any person who [1] touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is [2] against the will of the person touched, and is [3] for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery . . . .” “[T]he sexual battery statute’s use of the phrase touching ‘for the specific purpose of . . . sexual abuse’ encompasses a purpose of insulting, humiliating, intimidating, or physically harming a person sexually by touching an ‘intimate part’ of the person . . . .” (In

2014(See In re Gladys L. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 845, 849 .) 6 At a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court must determine whether the allegations of the petition are true.

2014(See In re Gladys L. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 845, 849 .) 6 At a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court must determine whether the allegations of the petition are true.

2014Due Process Confers a Right to “Trial” on Issues Raised by the Section 300 Petition “[O]nce it has been concluded that a due process right exists we … decide what process is due. [Citation.]” (In re Malinda S. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 368, 383 , superseded by statute on another point as stated in People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200 , fn. omitted.) Identifying the dictates of due process generally requires consideration of several factors, including “the private interest that will be affected by the official action [and] … the [dignity] interest in informing individuals of the nature, grounds and cons

2014Due Process Confers a Right to “Trial” on Issues Raised by the Section 300 Petition “[O]nce it has been concluded that a due process right exists we … decide what process is due. [Citation.]” (In re Malinda S. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 368, 383 , superseded by statute on another point as stated in People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200 , fn. omitted.) Identifying the dictates of due process generally requires consideration of several factors, including “the private interest that will be affected by the official action [and] … the [dignity] interest in informing individuals of the nature, grounds and cons

1999In In re Tomi C. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 694 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 210 ], a social services agency filed a petition alleging a father had sexually molested his children.

1999In In re Tomi C. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 694 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 210 ], a social services agency filed a petition alleging a father had sexually molested his children.

1997Following a hearing that primarily addressed whether the doctrine set out in People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 360 P.2d 39 ] allowed aggregation under these facts, the court overruled the demurrer, noting “Bailey still is good law.” At a contested jurisdictional hearing the court found David had committed all five counts.

1997Following a hearing that primarily addressed whether the doctrine set out in People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 360 P.2d 39 ] allowed aggregation under these facts, the court overruled the demurrer, noting “Bailey still is good law.” At a contested jurisdictional hearing the court found David had committed all five counts.

1994(In re Michelle M., supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 328 .) The appellant in Michelle M. had ample opportunity to challenge the basis of the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction prior to termination.

1994In that case, the contested jurisdictional hearing occurred two years before the dependency action was terminated. ( In re Michelle M., supra, 8 Cal. App.4th at p. 328 .) The appellant in Michelle M. had ample opportunity to challenge the basis of the juvenile court's assertion of jurisdiction prior to termination.

1992“The Court: I’m satisfied that the mother understands her rights and is voluntarily waiving them." Relying on In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ], the mother contends that the failure of the court to advise and obtain personal waivers to these fundamental rights voids any waiver of a contested jurisdictional hearing, and requires the jurisdictional order to be set aside.

1992“The Court: I’m satisfied that the mother understands her rights and is voluntarily waiving them." Relying on In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ], the mother contends that the failure of the court to advise and obtain personal waivers to these fundamental rights voids any waiver of a contested jurisdictional hearing, and requires the jurisdictional order to be set aside.

2023When making this finding, the court stated as follows: “As to the specific allegations in this case, the Court has reviewed, prior to today, the case of Robert C., 219 Cal.App.4th 1241 ; the case of In re E.H., 108 Cal.App.4th 659 ; and the case of In re A.S., 202 Cal.App.4th 237 .

2023When making this finding, the court stated as follows: “As to the specific allegations in this case, the Court has reviewed, prior to today, the case of Robert C., 219 Cal.App.4th 1241 ; the case of In re E.H., 108 Cal.App.4th 659 ; and the case of In re A.S., 202 Cal.App.4th 237 .

2023(In re S.N., supra, at p. 672 [applying Chapman error standard]; In re Monique T., supra, at pp. 1377-1387 [applying Chapman, but declining to decide whether error should be analyzed under Chapman “or the more easily met reasonable probability test” of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 (Watson)].) These precedents are rightly focused on the concerns created by a judicial officer accepting parent’s waiver of a right to a contested jurisdictional hearing without court advisement and oversight to make sure such a waiver is knowing and voluntary.

2022The contested jurisdictional hearing was continued to the next available date of August 10, 2020. 5 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 . 9 3.

2021(J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1335 , citing Joe Z. v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 797, 806, fn. 5 .) We review a Brady claim de novo but give great weight to the trial court’s factual findings when supported by substantial evidence. ( Erickson, supra, at p. 1163 .) To support his Brady claim, C.G. cites a letter submitted to the juvenile court after the contested jurisdictional hearing by someone named Isabel V., who apparently observed the trial.

2021(A.R., supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at pp. 736, 739.) The agency requested that the court find father’s appeal moot due to the court’s subsequent order awarding custody of the minor to the mother and terminating dependency jurisdiction.