In Re Larry W.

California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 1971 No. Crim. 19842Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that probation and police reports are admissible at a juvenile detention hearing and that a minor is not entitled to the automatic production of live witnesses for cross-examination absent a specific request.

Issues

Whether a juvenile detention order is invalid if based on written probation and police reports rather than live testimony.
Whether the juvenile court must produce witnesses for cross-examination in every detention hearing within the statutory time limits.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find nothing in the statute or in In re William M., supra, which makes either the probation officer’s report or the police reports inadmissible at a detention hearing.”

“The minor’s opportunity for a full hearing with witnesses subject to cross-examination is thus preserved without placing the juvenile court in the impossible position of having to produce witnesses in every case”

Opinion

FILES, P. J.

There is before us a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County ordering the detention of petitioner, a 17-year-old boy, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 636.

On March 18, 1971, a petition was filed in the juvenile court charging that Larry W. (petitioner here) came within section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code in that he had committed a robbery. On March 19 a detention hearing was held before a referee who made a finding “that it is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the minor and the persons and property of others that he be detained.” The minor was thereupon ordered detained and an adjudication hearing set for April 1.

On March 23 the public defender filed this petition on behalf of the minor.

Two procedural points require comment.

First.

The petition states that no application has been made to the presiding judge of the juvenile court for the reason that such an application would be a futile act and would merely delay the proceedings. The petition alleges the “widespread, if not universal, failure of the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court to follow the clear mandate of the Supreme Court stated in

In re William M.

[3 Cal.3d 16 (89 Cal.Rptr. 33, 473 P.2d 737)], . . .”

We do not approve of this deliberate bypass of the juvenile court judge. We do not assume the superior court is deliberately ignoring the law. Where there is a dispute as to what the law is, that dispute is better presented to a reviewing court in the form of a decision of the trial court upon a specific factual situation, and not upon the public defender’s allegation of how he thinks the superior court would rule.

Second.

The petition here alleges that the finding of “immediate and urgent necessity” was based upon a reading of the probation officer’s report and the unsworn written reports of various officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, which the referee received as evidence over the objections of the attorney for the minor. It does ncy appear that counsel

[293]

In Re Larry W.

AI Brief

FILES, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief