In re J.G. CA1/1

Filed 10/8/13 In re J.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re J.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A137262

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Solano County v. Super. Ct. No. J38856) J.G., Defendant and Appellant.

J.G. (minor) was found to have committed battery on a person with whom he had a dating relationship largely on the testimony of a witness who saw him beating a woman. The only evidence of a personal relationship between minor and the victim was minor‘s own statement to police that the woman was his ―girlfriend.‖ Minor contends the doctrine of corpus delicti required the prosecution to introduce evidence of the nature of the relationship independent of his statement. Finding no such requirement, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND In a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) on October 23, 2012, minor was alleged to have committed misdemeanor battery on a person with whom he had a previous dating relationship (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)). Only two witnesses testified at trial. The first, a bystander, said he was driving in Fairfield when he spotted minor sitting on top of a female, hitting her with both hands. In

one hand minor held a cell phone, while the other was a closed fist. The witness estimated minor took from four to six swings at the victim, who was struggling to get out from beneath him. When the witness stopped his car and approached them, minor ran off. The ―frantic‖ victim was crying and shaking, had bleeding wounds, and complained of headaches. The witness called the police. The second witness, a police officer, testified she located minor after having been alerted to the assault. After minor had been detained, he said to the police, ―Why are you guys stopping me? We were just in a fight. My girlfriend and I were just arguing.‖ Minor‘s counsel argued that because the victim had not testified, there was no evidence the contact between them was nonconsensual. He also contended there was ―insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the nature of the relationship.‖ The juvenile court found the allegations true. Minor was continued as a ward of the court and placed in the New Foundations program. II. DISCUSSION Minor contends the jurisdictional allegations are unsupported by the evidence because there was no independent evidence of the nature of his relationship with the victim, as required by the doctrine of corpus delicti. ―In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime itself—i.e., the fact of injury, loss, or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. In California, . . . the prosecution cannot satisfy this burden by relying exclusively upon the extrajudicial statements, confessions, or admissions of the defendant.‖ (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168–1169 (Alvarez).)1 The purpose of the requirement of evidence independent of the defendant‘s statements is ―to assure that ‗the accused is not admitting to a crime that never occurred.‘ ‖ (People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301 (Jones).) ― ‗ ―The independent proof may be by circumstantial evidence [citation], and it need not be beyond a reasonable doubt. A slight