In re M.D. CA1/4

Filed 1/28/16 In re M.D. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re M.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A141206 M.D., (Alameda County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. SJ13021413-01)

M.D. (minor) appeals from an order of wardship entered pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 following the juvenile court’s finding that he committed a lewd act upon a child under the age of fourteen. Minor contends that reversal of the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding is required for numerous reasons. First, minor, who was thirteen years old at the time of the incident in question, asserts that his federal due process rights were violated because the prosecution did not rebut the presumption of criminal incapacity for a minor under the age of fourteen. Second, he asks this court to review the victim’s sealed academic and medical records to determine whether the juvenile court erred by failing to disclose any discoverable materials in violation of minor’s rights to due process and confrontation. Third, minor asserts that the juvenile court committed statutory error by viewing the crime scene outside of his presence and in

1

the absence of a waiver. Minor also argues that certain of these errors were cumulatively prejudicial. In addition, minor separately argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion at disposition by imposing unreasonable probation conditions prohibiting various types of gang involvement. Minor also contends that these probation conditions were imposed in violation of his First Amendment rights. Finally, in a companion petition for writ of habeas corpus, minor complains that the juvenile court improperly permitted a witness to make a blanket assertion of his right against self-incrimination, thereby violating minor’s right to present a defense.1 We affirm the judgment. Minor’s petition for writ of habeas corpus has been summarily denied by separate order. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Introduction On August 6, 2013, the Alameda County District Attorney filed an original wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that minor committed felony rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)), felony forcible lewd and lascivious act against a child under the age of fourteen years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)), and felony first-degree attempted burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 664). On November 20, 2013, the juvenile court made no finding on the rape allegation, but found the lewd act allegation true beyond a reasonable doubt. On November 21, 2013, the court dismissed the attempted burglary allegation on the prosecutor’s motion, with facts and restitution open. On January 16, 2014, the juvenile court adjudged minor a ward of the court and placed him at home on probation. B. Respondent’s Case 1. R. Doe R.D. attended junior high school in Newark, California, and was in the seventh grade. She was twelve years old at the time of this incident. M.D. was in R.D.’s sixth