In Re Korry K.

California Court of Appeal Jun 25, 1981 No. Crim. 38929Published

Before: Stephens

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A minor at a juvenile detention hearing is entitled to present evidence relevant to whether they pose a danger to the community, even if that evidence also supports an affirmative defense to the underlying charges. The court erred by categorically excluding such evidence as irrelevant simply because it related to a defense.

Issues

Whether a minor has a right to present an affirmative defense at a juvenile detention hearing to secure dismissal of charges.
Whether a minor may present evidence at a detention hearing that is relevant to the necessity of detention, even if that evidence also supports an affirmative defense.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A juvenile detention hearing (§ 635) or rehearing (§ 637) is not the equivalent of an adult preliminary hearing and the minor has no right to prove an affirmative defense for the sole purpose of having the charges against him dismissed”

“It is no basis for exclusion, that evidence which may demonstrate that a minor is not a danger to others pending the jurisdictional hearing, may also provide an affirmative defense at the jurisdictional hearing.”

“The court erred in failing to acknowledge or address the distinction between a defense to the charge and factors relevant to the issue of detention”

Opinion

STEPHENS, J.

The minor petitioner herein challenges an order detaining him in juvenile hall (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 636)

pending his

[969]

jurisdictional hearing in a section 602 proceeding. The Supreme Court issued an order to show cause returnable before this court. Shortly thereafter a jurisdictional hearing was held and the question became moot as to petitioner. The issues raised by the petition involve the scope of evidence admissible in juvenile detention proceedings, issues of broad public interest. Because of the limited time between detention proceedings and adjudications of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under section 602, it would be virtually impossible, as a practical matter, to find a case in which the issue did not become moot as to the petitioning minor before an appellate court could issue a final ruling. We therefore consider the merits of the issues raised.

(In re William M.

(1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23 [89 Cal.Rptr. 33, 473 P.2d 737];

In re Dennis H.

(1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 350, 352 [96 Cal.Rptr. 791].)

The section 602 petition alleged that petitioner had violated Penal Code sections 245, subdivision (a) (assault with a deadly weapon), 242 and 243 (battery) and 594, subdivision (a) (malicious mischief). At the detention hearing, which was conducted October 16, 1980, the court considered a detention report prepared by a deputy probation officer and a police officer’s arrest report. According to these reports, petitioner created a disturbance outside a Stop & Go Market, was pushed by a female clerk and asked to leave. He left momentarily, but immediately returned, broke a 16-ounce bottle and slashed the clerk’s throat.

The police report detailed an investigation of the incident which involved interviews with four witnesses, two of whom were petitioner’s friends. The latter two claimed that the clerk, without provocation, “slugged, kneed, and verbally chastised” petitioner, that petitioner had been carrying an empty soda pop bottle which he dropped while attempting to defend himself, and that when it shattered a large piece of glass flew up and hit the victim in the throat. The other two witnesses, who knew petitioner casually from school, corroborated the victim’s version.

In Re Korry K.

AI Brief

STEPHENS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief