Opinion
A149827
06-20-2017
In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.M., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J43553)
15-year-old A.M. (appellant) appeals from the juvenile court's order placing him on probation after finding he was in possession of a weapon (a knife) in a school zone (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a) ). He contends the corpus delecti of the offense was not established because there was insufficient evidence aside from his extrajudicial admission to support the finding that he had committed the offense. We reject the contention and affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A juvenile wardship petition was filed on July 15, 2016, alleging that then-14-year-old appellant was in possession of a weapon (knife) in a school zone (§ 626.10, subd. (a)).
On April 19, 2016, Anna Hamilton, the Dean of Discipline for the middle school appellant attended, received a report from a student services receptionist that appellant had a knife on the school's campus. Thereafter, Hamilton went to the office and found appellant there. The receptionist had taken possession of the knife.
Hamilton conducted an investigation by interviewing other students, an eyewitness, and watching a video that had been posted on SnapChat. Hamilton also looked at the knife, which she described as "a red Force Scorpion spring-assisted folding knife" with a three-inch blade. Hamilton photographed the knife next to a "standard ruler" showing the blade was three inches long.
Hamilton asked appellant about the knife. Appellant said he found the knife "as he was walking to school and picked it up and kept it for safety." He admitted he showed the knife in class and said he brought it to school because "he lives in an unsafe area and he wanted to have it for protection."
Appellant rested on the state of the evidence.
The prosecutor asked the juvenile court to sustain the petition because the evidence established that appellant possessed a knife with a three-inch blade and brought it to school. Defense counsel argued there was no evidence that appellant was combative or assaultive, and no reliable photograph showing that the knife blade was more than two and one-half inches long. The prosecutor said the knife was photographed next to a ruler showing the blade was three inches long.
The juvenile court sustained the petition, stating: "All right. In this case, obviously, it's implicit through the testimony that when the knife was initially discovered, it was discovered by somebody else. So . . . the possession we have here is constructive initially. In terms of the corpus, we have the knife in the room, the middle school office with the dean and a photo was taken. It was described and the minor admitted to her that it was his. He brought it, and it was contemporaneous in time and place in terms of being in the office that day. [¶] The surrounding circumstances as to who actually saw the knife, how some video was made occurred, we have no idea. That was not presented. It was only offered to explain why the principal was speaking with [appellant] in the office with that knife present. [¶] But for purposes of the elements, it has been proved, albeit it's a little bit of a round-about way. So I do believe the People have sustained the burden beyond a reasonable doubt. The knife was on campus. [¶] It was there physically in the office. It was measured and photographed. And he admitted. I agree . . . that his intent certainly does not appear to be menacing. I didn't hear or see any evidence of that, but that's a disposition-type issue, and I will take that into account at disposition. The court sustained the petition as a misdemeanor.
At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and placed him in his mother's custody on formal probation, with various terms and conditions.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the corpus delicti of the offense was not established because there was insufficient evidence apart from his extrajudicial admission to support the finding that he committed the offense. We reject the contention.
In reviewing a challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence, the court "consider[s] the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment and presume[s] the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence in support of the judgment. The test is whether substantial evidence supports the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 432.) The reviewing court's sole function is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319.) The standard of review is the same in cases where the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.)
"In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime itself, i.e., the fact of injury, loss, or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. In California, it has traditionally been held, the prosecution cannot satisfy this burden by relying exclusively upon the extrajudicial statements, confessions, or admissions of the defendant." (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169.) "[T]he modicum of necessary independent evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus the [trier of fact's] duty to find such independent proof, is not great. The independent evidence may be circumstantial, and need only be 'a slight or prima facie showing' permitting an inference of injury, loss, or harm from a criminal agency, after which the defendant's statements may be considered to strengthen the case on all issues. (Id. at p. 1181; People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 404; People v. Martinez (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 851, 855 ["A slight or prima facie showing is sufficient to establish the corpus delicti"].)
Section 626.10, subdivision (a)(1), provides that it is a crime to "bring[] or possess[] any . . . knife having a blade longer than 2½ inches . . . upon the grounds of, or within, any public or private school . . . ." Aside from appellant's admission that he brought the knife to school and showed it in class, there was testimony from Hamilton that after receiving a report that appellant possessed a knife on school grounds, she went to the school office and found appellant there. The receptionist had taken possession of the knife and showed it to Hamilton, who photographed the knife next to a ruler showing the blade was longer than two and one-half inches long. While the inference of criminal agency must be reasonable, it need not be the only one possible or even the most compelling. (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 364.) The reasonable inferences from the photograph and Hamilton's testimony were sufficient to make a prima facie showing for the corpus delicti of the offense of possession of a knife on school grounds.
"[O]nce the necessary quantum of evidence is present to satisfy the corpus delicti rule, the defendant's extrajudicial statements may be considered for their full value to strengthen the case on all issues." (In re I.M. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1205.) Because there was some evidence aside from appellant's admission that he possessed the knife on school grounds, the juvenile court properly considered his admission to find there was substantial evidence to sustain the allegation.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
McGuiness, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Pollak, J. /s/_________
Siggins, J.