Opinion
D049093
4-24-2007
In re JOSEPH V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH V., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
The juvenile court adjudged Joseph V. a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 based on true findings that he committed misdemeanor vandalism and possessed graffiti tools and it placed him on supervised probation at his grandparents home. Joseph appeals, contending substantial evidence does not support the courts true findings. We find his arguments unavailing and affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On the evening of April 29, 2005, minor Jorge C. was at home when his neighbor, Jessica R., came over to speak to Jorges father, Felipe C., because she had seen two kids spray-painting his wall. Specifically, Jessica saw two kids that she could not identify by Felipes wall, one spray-painting and the other one on a bicycle watching. The kids both got on the bicycle and left when they saw Jessica watching them. Jorge also saw the kids leaving, but did not see their faces and could not recognize them because it was dark. Felipe then arrived home in his car, saw the kids on the bicycle and got back in the car with Jorge to search for the kids, but could not find them.
At trial, the prosecution presented a photograph of the cinder block wall at the edge of the Chavez property that had been spray-painted with "KP," "Klones" and "K." Jorge knew Joseph lived around the corner and had spoken to him in the past, but could not identify Joseph as the person who had done the spray-painting. Jorge testified that when he and Joseph had been together, Joseph pointed out tags he had written that looked similar to the writing shown in the prosecution photograph. Jorge also claimed that Joseph bragged about tagging certain things and admitted being part of the "KP" tagging crew. Jorge, however, did not know what "KP" stood for and was not familiar with the term "moniker."
Juan Cephas, an officer with the San Diego Police Department assigned to the gang unit as a graffiti strike force member, testified as the investigating officer and as a graffiti expert. Officer Cephas considered the writing on Felipes wall to be tagging and stated that tagging followed certain patterns, with taggers writing the crew name to promote the tagging crew or their moniker to promote themselves because taggers want everyone to know who they are and how frequently they tag. He also testified that (1) taggers write their tagging crew name and individual moniker, (2) the letters in the writing at issue were an example of a tagging crew name, the word was an individuals moniker, and (3) individuals within a tagging crew or gang never use the same moniker. Officer Cephas had also heard of a tagging crew called "KP," but did not know much about it.
Joseph testified in his own defense, admitting that he lived around the block from Jorge and could walk to his house in three or four minutes. He claimed that he never told Jorge about being in a tagging crew called "KP" and denied ever taking Jorge around and pointing out graffiti to him, including the words "Klones" or "KP." He testified that he had not done any tagging on the evening in question because he had been home sick all day, did not own a bicycle and did not ride on the back of anyone elses bicycle. He claimed that he was in the shower when Felipe came over to confront him and that his grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle and niece were all home at the time.
The juvenile court believed Jorge had no reason to lie and could not have fabricated a lie so quickly, noting that Jorge immediately told his father what he knew, that his father immediately confronted Joseph and that Jorge then told Officer Cephas what he knew. Based on Jorges testimony and Officer Cephass expert testimony, the juvenile court made a true finding on the vandalism charge, concluding that Joseph was the tagger. Accordingly, it also made a true finding on the count that Joseph possessed graffiti tools.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
Sufficiency of the evidence claims are reviewed under the same standard in juvenile and adult criminal cases. (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1371.) The critical inquiry is "whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." (Ibid., quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-319, italics in original.) The standard of appellate review is the same in cases in which the People rely primarily on circumstantial evidence and it is the trier of fact, not the appellate court, which must be convinced of the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 932-933.)
We view the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains reasonable, credible, and solid evidence to support the trier of facts finding. (People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 509.) It is within the exclusive province of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of a witness and conflicts in the evidence or testimony that are subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment. (People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 361.) If the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we are bound to give due deference to the trier of fact and not retry the case ourselves. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.)
II. Analysis
Joseph contends there was insufficient evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of vandalism or possession of graffiti tools. We agree that the case against Joseph was far from open-and-shut because there was no direct evidence identifying him as the person that defaced Felipes wall, and his own testimony, if credited, showed he was not the tagger. The prosecution, however, may establish the identity of a defendant entirely by circumstantial evidence (People v Barnum (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 803, 805) and the evidence here was sufficient to establish Joseph as the tagger.
The juvenile court could have reasonably disbelieved Josephs testimony, including his unsubstantiated alibi that he had been home sick all day and was showering at the time of the incident. Based on Jorges testimony, the juvenile court could have reasonably concluded that Joseph was part of the "KP" tagging crew and had previously tagged "KP" and "Klones." Officer Cephass testimony also established that "KP" was a tagging crew and that the graffiti at issue represented the tagging crew "KP" and the moniker "Klones." Because individuals within a gang or tagging crew do not use the same moniker, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Joseph was the perpetrator because he had written "Klones" in the past. Accordingly, it is reasonably inferable that if Joseph tagged the wall, he did it with graffiti tools he possessed. This evidence constitutes sufficiently substantial evidence to support the juvenile courts true findings.
DISPOSITION
The order of the juvenile court is affirmed.
We Concur:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.