In Re CDH

California Court of Appeal May 5, 1970 No. 27442Published

Before: Christian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the case must be remanded because the trial court may have applied the unconstitutional preponderance of the evidence standard.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of assault with a deadly weapon under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
Whether the trial court's potential application of the preponderance of the evidence standard, as permitted by statute at the time, requires a new trial or remand for new findings.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The appellate court must determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the jurisdictional allegations of the petition were true.”

“We learn from Winship that the test given in section 701 is unconstitutional; if that test was applied, error occurred.”

“The order is reversed with directions to make new findings and thereupon to take such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”

7 Cal.App.3d 230 (1970) 86 Cal. Rptr. 565 In re C.D.H., Jr., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

EARL M. HEMENWAY, as Chief Probation Officer, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent,

C.D.H., Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. 27442. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four.

May 5, 1970. [232] COUNSEL

Mathews, Traverse & McKittrick and James R. McKittrick for Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Granucci, Jerome C. Utz and Joyce F. Nedde, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

CHRISTIAN, J.

C.D.H., Jr. appeals from an order of the juvenile court adjudging him to be a minor coming under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, in that appellant violated Penal Code section 245 (assault with a deadly weapon) by shooting Keith Baldy with a .22 rifle.

On the evening of the shooting appellant, the victim Keith Baldy, and other juveniles, were amusing themselves with music, cards, and drink in a trailer house near the village of Hoopa. As the victim was washing his hands, appellant called out his name and then shot him in the back. Appellant had earlier declared his intention of getting a gun and shooting the others. He had been drinking; the victim testified that he therefore did not take this statement as an actual threat. A girl who was present had earlier [233] picked up the rifle, worked the lever, looked into the chamber, and determined that the rifle was then not loaded. Just before the shooting appellant went to a nearby house where the victim's mother was and told her "that there was some disturbance over there." She followed appellant back to the trailer and saw the shooting. She testified, "Well, I don't think it was intentionally, I believe maybe he was bluffing them, as I said; I thought it was a BB gun."

In Re CDH

AI Brief

OPINION

CHRISTIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief