In Re Luis M.

California Court of Appeal May 13, 1986 No. G003890Published

Before: Wallin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. At a juvenile detention rehearing, a minor's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is limited to the preparers of the reports or documents relied upon by the court, and does not extend to the crime victims themselves.

Issues

Does a minor have a right to confront and cross-examine crime victims at a detention rehearing?
Are police reports sufficient to establish a prima facie case at a detention rehearing if the minor invokes the right to confront the report's preparer?

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Dennis H. unquestionably limits that right to the preparers of the reports, not the crime victims themselves.”

“The minor is guaranteed the right to confront and cross-examine the authors of reports submitted to justify detention.”

Opinion

WALLIN, J.

What witnesses are required to establish a prima facie case at a minor’s detention rehearing pursuant to

In re Dennis H.

(1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 350 [96 Cal.Rptr. 791]?

Sixteen-year-old Luis M. was arrested for robbery on March 7, 1986. He appeared in custody in the juvenile court four days later and was ordered detained. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 632, 635.) Based on his request, a contested detention rehearing, pursuant to

In re Dennis H., supra,

19 Cal.App.3d 350, was scheduled for March 18, 1986. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 637.) The court ordered the district attorney “to have witnesses available” for the

Dennis H.

hearing, per

Edsel P.

Superior Court

(1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 763 [211 Cal.Rptr. 869]. No one from the district attorney’s office was in court at that time. Although the order to make witnesses available was incorporated into a written minute order it did not specify which witnesses were to be made available.

At the

Dennis H.

hearing, the prosecution offered the testimony of the police officer who arrested Luis. That officer interviewed the robbery victims and incorporated their statements into a police report which the prosecution offered into evidence. Luis objected to the introduction of the police report on hearsay grounds and argued the prosecution was required to present the testimony of the crime victims themselves to establish a prima facie case under

Edsel P.

The court disagreed, overruled the objection, admitted the police report and ordered Luis’ continued detention pending the jurisdictional hearing.

Luis sought immediate relief in this court via this petition for writ of habeas corpus. After argument, the petition was denied orally.

A juvenile arrested for a criminal offense is entitled to a timely hearing to determine whether he should be detained pending resolution of the petition

In Re Luis M.

AI Brief

WALLIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief