In re Robert M. CA2/2

Filed 9/17/13 In re Robert M. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re ROBERT M., a Person Coming Under B244324 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VJ42422)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Fumiko Hachiya Wasserman, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

On September 11, 2012, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed an amended petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that 15-year-old appellant Robert M. had committed three crimes: Vandalism by defacing railroad boxcars with graffiti causing over $400 in damage, a felony (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) (count 1); resisting a peace officer, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1) (count 2); and vandalism by defacing walls with graffiti causing under $400 in damage, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 595) (count 3). Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court sustained the amended petition and declared appellant a ward of the court. The court declared the offenses to be misdemeanors and placed appellant at home on probation. Appellant contends the juvenile court committed prejudicial error by admitting hearsay and testimonial statements made to police and by allowing the graffiti expert to base his opinion on these statements. We reverse the order sustaining the petition as to count 1. FACTS On February 25, 2012, at about 8:35 p.m., California Highway Patrol Officer Dylan Youngblood saw four minors spray painting the walls of a building in a railroad yard. At one point, appellant was lifted up so he could reach higher on the building. The minors walked away and Officer Youngblood ordered them to stop and get on the ground. They ran away, but three of them eventually stopped. Appellant kept running and was caught by California Highway Patrol Sergeant Tannon Brown, who had responded to the scene. Appellant had “a lot” of paint on his hands—in white, black and blue—as did the other three minors. The spray paint on the walls was wet to the touch. Spray paint on nearby boxcars was dry, and it was unknown when they had been tagged.1 Officer Youngblood interviewed all four minors at the police station. One of the minors said his moniker was “Aker” and that he was a member of the “TC” “tagging