In Re Robert P.

California Court of Appeal Jun 29, 1981 No. 37987Published

Before: Lillie

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court's refusal to honor a timely filed affidavit of prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 deprived the court of jurisdiction, rendering the subsequent orders void.

Issues

Whether the corpus delicti was established by independent evidence to allow the admission of the minor's extrajudicial statements.
Whether the affidavit to disqualify the trial judge was timely filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If the affidavit is timely and in proper form the judge must recuse himself without further proof and the case must be reassigned to another judge.”

“We are compelled to conclude that the affidavit was timely filed and in proper form. Immediate disqualification was mandatory”

“the legal effect of Judge Lachs' improper refusal to recuse himself resulted in loss of jurisdiction. Thus the orders are void and the error requires reversal.”

121 Cal.App.3d 36 (1981) 175 Cal. Rptr. 252 In re ROBERT P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

ROBERT TERRY P., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. 37987. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One.

June 29, 1981. [38] COUNSEL

Michael J. Udovic, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, S. Clark Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Edward T. Fogel, Jr., and Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

LILLIE, J.

The minor appeals from order sustaining petition on three counts petty theft, receiving stolen property and tampering with an automobile and order of disposition.

(1) A prima facie showing of the corpus delicti of the crime charged must be established before a defendant's extrajudicial statements, admissions or confessions may be received in evidence. (People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d 672, 679 [105 Cal. Rptr. 792, 504 P.2d 1256].) Appellant contends there is no evidence independent of his statements to show that he committed the crimes. He is in error for the establishment of the corpus delicti does not require proof that defendant committed the crime charged. (People v. Starr (1970) 11 Cal. App.3d 574, 581 [89 [39] Cal. Rptr. 906].) (2) "`All that need be shown by independent evidence before a confession may be introduced is that a crime has been committed by someone.' [Citations.]" (People v. Ott (1978) 84 Cal. App.3d 118, 131 [148 Cal. Rptr. 479]; original italics.) (3) The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence and by reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. (People v. Miller (1969) 71 Cal.2d 459, 477 [78 Cal. Rptr. 449, 455 P.2d 377].)

In Re Robert P.

AI Brief

OPINION

LILLIE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief