People v. Francisco N.

California Court of Appeal Sep 30, 1986 No. F006698Published

Before: Franson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the 'clear proof' standard required by Penal Code section 26 to establish that a minor under 14 years of age understood the wrongfulness of their criminal act must be satisfied by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than by clear and convincing evidence. Consequently, the failure to apply this standard constitutes a violation of due process requiring reversal and remand.

Issues

Whether the 'clear proof' standard of Penal Code section 26, subdivision One, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a minor's capacity to commit a crime.
Whether the application of an incorrect standard of proof regarding a minor's capacity to commit a crime necessitates reversal of the juvenile court's judgment.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that the trial court applied an incorrect standard of proof in evaluating appellant’s knowledge of the wrongfulness of his actions, and that the proper standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“Denial of federal constitutional rights demands automatic reversal where the rights denied are deemed basic to a fair trial.”

Opinion

FRANSON, Acting P. J.

Statement of the Case and Facts

On May 24, 1985, a security guard at Pay Less Drug Store on Shaw Avenue in Fresno observed appellant, then 12 years of age, remove a toy car from its packaging and exit the store without paying for the toy.

The guard apprehended appellant outside the store and detained him. The toy, valued at $3.49, was recovered.

Appellant was cited to the police probation team. When he failed to appear on the citation on May 28,1985, his case was referred to the probation department. In October 1985, a Fresno Police Department crime report indicated that appellant was “reported as out of control.” He was taken into custody for the Pay Less shoplifting and his failure to appear.

On October 21, 1985, a petition was filed in Fresno County Juvenile Court alleging appellant’s violation of Penal Code section 488, petty theft, a misdemeanor. On the same date appellant appeared before the juvenile court where he denied the allegation in the petition. The court found that a prima facie case had been stated, and ordered a further hearing.

On November 12, 1985, at the adjudication hearing, appellant waived his trial rights and admitted the allegation in the petition. The judge specifically asked appellant whether he knew “it was wrong to take property like this without paying for it at the time you did it?” Appellant responded affirmatively. Moments later, the court held: “Frank does come within the provisions of Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The allegations of the petition, violation of Penal Code Section 488, a misdemeanor, are true beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the statements the minor has made in open court. [¶] The Court further finds by

clear and convincing evidence, namely Frank’s statements,

that at the time he committed the

[178]

petty theft, he new [sic] and understood the wrongful nature of the act he was committing.”

At a subsequent dispositional hearing, the judge declared appellant to be a ward of the juvenile court, and ordered him removed from parental custody and detained at the Ashjian Treatment Center pending placement in a foster home. Appellant was also placed on probation, with various conditions.

People v. Francisco N.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief