Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. J212796 Desiree A. Bruce-Lyle, Judge.
HUFFMAN, J.
The juvenile court declared Robert M. a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after entering a true finding he committed battery (Pen. Code, § 242). Robert also admitted to committing petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484). The court placed him on probation. Robert contends the evidence is insufficient to support the true finding of battery.
FACTS
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 (Johnson)), the following occurred. Robert loaned his IPOD to his friend, M.N., and though M.N. later returned it, Robert accused M.N. of trying to steal it. Still angry over the IPOD, Robert and three boys arrived at M.N.'s house, looking for a fight. M.N. was inside his open garage scraping wax off his surfboard with a knife. The group approached M.N. and Robert said he wanted to fight, but M.N. responded he did not want to fight. When the group pressed in and continued to taunt M.N., he waved his knife at them and told them to get back. The four boys temporarily retreated, and a neighbor heard them plotting how Robert was going to go back and hit M.N.
Ten minutes later, the group reappeared at M.N.'s house. When M.N. walked out of the garage to take out the trash, he asked the group, "What's up?" M.N. testified he wanted to "settle things" and "just talk it out." The group continued to challenge M.N. to fight and Robert finally swung at M.N. They began to fight and wrestle each other to the ground. M.N.'s parents and neighbors eventually broke up the fight. M.N. had the knife in a pouch on his belt, although he never used it or pulled it out during the fight. At some point, the knife fell out while the boys were wrestling, but it was not used by anyone.
M.N. testified he threw the knife inside the garage after the first confrontation and did not have it during the fight with Robert.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Robert argues there is insufficient evidence he committed a battery. Rather, Robert argues the evidence shows he was acting in self-defense.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a juvenile court judgment sustaining a criminal allegation, we defer to the court's findings, just as we do in appeals by a criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1371-1372; In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809.) We view the entire record in the light most favorable to the court's findings, and draw all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment. The record must contain substantial evidence which is of reasonable, credible and solid value. (Johnson, supra, 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) We must then determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at p. 576.) To do so, we only examine whether the evidence presented before the court was sufficient to support the conviction. (Id. at p. 578.)
"Battery is 'any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.' " (People v. Mayes (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 195, 197, quoting Pen. Code, § 242.) Self-defense justifies an act that would be battery absent the need to defend oneself, but does not entitle one to use force on another absent a threat or attempt to inflict injury. (Mayes, supra, at p. 197.)
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment below, Robert was the aggressor. He planned to fight M.N. and brought three of his friends along to intimidate M.N.. Despite the continued harassment, M.N. repeatedly told the group that he did not want to fight. It was only when Robert threw the first punch that the fight commenced. Robert's argument that he acted in self-defense because he knew M.N. had a knife lacks merit given M.N.'s efforts to avoid the fight in contrast with the persistent taunts levied by Robert and the other three boys. Indeed, Robert testified he was not afraid of the knife or worried that M.N. would hurt him. Therefore, we find sufficient evidence of the battery true finding and reject Robert's argument that he acted in self-defense.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. McDONALD, J.