Opinion
E081979
05-02-2024
In re A.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. A.A., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Genevieve Herbert, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. J296528 Tony Raphael, Judge. Affirmed.
Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Genevieve Herbert, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
FIELDS J.
INTRODUCTION
The San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that appellant A.A. (minor) committed misdemeanor battery on school property. (Pen. Code, § 243.2, subd. (a)(1).) After a contested jurisdictional hearing, a juvenile court found the allegation true. The court did not declare minor a ward but placed her in the custody of her mother on terms and conditions of probation. On appeal, minor contends there was insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that she was incapable of committing a crime, pursuant to Penal Code section 26. We affirm the judgment.
The record indicates that minor was also known by the name "Jay."
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 2023, minor was 12 years old and was involved in a physical altercation at her middle school. H.V. (the victim) went into the school restroom and several girls, including minor, A.S., and A.V., followed her and started yelling at her. The victim heard minor telling A.S. to hit her. A.S. and A.V. pulled the victim's hair and started hitting her on the back. A.S. pulled the victim to the ground, and the victim ended up on top of A.S.; minor pulled the victim off of her. While on the ground, A.S. pulled the victim's hair and kicked her in the stomach and legs. Minor tried to kick the victim and punched her on the back five to 10 times. The fight ended when it appeared that a teacher was approaching the restroom. Minor and the girls "rushed out" and left the victim. The victim suffered visible injuries to her face and body.
Two videos taken of the altercation were played for the court at the jurisdictional hearing. In one of the videos, minor can be heard actively encouraging A.S. to participate in the fight. One video shows that minor was the one who told everyone to stop, and then the girls exited the bathroom and left the victim there.
The People called A.R. (Mr. R.) as a witness at the jurisdictional hearing. Mr. R. testified that he was a vice principal, who oversaw student discipline at minor's middle school. He was informed when any disciplinary action was taken against a student. Mr. R. testified that the school instructed students regarding behavioral expectations via "talks throughout the year" and lessons in their classes about how to "behaviorally be successful."
Mr. R. further testified that the school administration posted behavior matrices around campus about the proper way for students to behave in specific areas. For example, they had matrices posted in the classrooms describing classroom behavior expectations (e.g., being respectful). Matrices were posted in the classrooms, hallways, lunch areas, common areas, locker rooms, and outside of the school. The administration also had weekly video announcements made, based on trends in behavioral issues. Students were given student agendas that included school expectations, rules, and policies, which were reviewed during the first week of school. These materials explicitly told the students what would happen if they violated the Education Code by fighting and instructed them to keep their hands to themselves (i.e., no fighting).
Mr. R. described the suspension process for students. When a student was referred for a behavioral issue, the administration would conduct an investigation, which included getting student witness statements or reviewing video footage or school surveillance camera footage. Once the administration concluded its initial investigation, it spoke with the student and explained the particular rule he/she was accused of breaking, as well as the suspension consequence. After a student completed suspension, the student would meet with a counselor to review expectations. They would discuss the behavior that led to the suspension, what the proper conduct would have been, and the differences between good behavior and bad behavior. Before a student could return to his/her classes, he/she was required to complete the suspension counseling, and such completion was documented in the school's learning management system (Aeries) and reviewed by Mr. R. and the administration team.
Mr. R. testified that he had known minor since November 2022 and interacted with her daily. He had conversations with her about the "proper way to do something," including following the behavioral expectations that all students be responsible, safe, and respectful. Mr. R. testified that he personally knew about minor's disciplinary history at the middle school because he would either "see it firsthand" or it was reported to him by the staff. He said he personally suspended minor two times. When asked if he remembered the instances he had been involved with minor, he said, "Personally, I believe there-I know of two situations where she broke Ed[ucation] Code 48900 (a)(1) which is fighting." He recalled one of the instances related to assaulting a school employee. Mr. R. confirmed that minor had completed the required suspension counseling, as verified in Aeries.
Following the presentation of evidence, the juvenile court found that minor understood the wrongfulness of her conduct. It considered the evidence, including the exhibits and arguments of counsel, as well as the credibility of the witnesses. The court acknowledged that section 26 establishes a presumption that a minor under age 14 is incapable of committing a crime, and the petitioner may rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the minor appreciated the wrongfulness of the conduct when it was committed. The court noted that minor's age of 12 years was sufficiently close to the age of 14, such that she had a greater ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct. The court stated that it watched the videos submitted several times and concluded that minor committed battery, both as a direct participant and an aider and abettor. The court noted that, toward the end of one of the videos, it seemed like minor was concerned with someone else walking into the bathroom, and she wanted to stop everything, which indicated her effort to conceal the incident and her knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct. The court also noted Mr. R.'s testimony demonstrated that minor received instruction about "'keep[ing] your hands to yourself.'"
DISCUSSION
Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court's Finding That Minor Was Capable of Committing a Crime
Minor contends there was insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that she was incapable of committing a crime pursuant to section 26 since the evidence did not support a reasonable inference that she understood the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of the incident. We conclude substantial evidence supports the court's finding that she understood the wrongfulness of her conduct.
A. Relevant Law
"Penal Code section 26 articulates a presumption that a minor under the age of 14 is incapable of committing a crime." (In re Manuel L. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 229, 231; see § 26.) "To defeat the presumption, the People must show by 'clear proof' that at the time the minor committed the charged act, he or she knew of its wrongfulness. This provision applies to proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602." (Manuel L., at pp. 231-232, fn. omitted.) "In determining whether the minor knows of the wrongfulness of his conduct, the court must often rely on circumstantial evidence such as the minor's age, experience, and understanding, as well as the circumstances of the offense, including its method of commission and concealment. [Citations.] Generally, the older a child gets and the closer he approaches the age of 14, the more likely it is that he appreciates the wrongfulness of his acts." (In re James B. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 862, 872-873 (James B.); see In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855, 867.)
The test on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the trier of fact. (James B., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 872.) "[W]e must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court's findings that the minor understood the wrongfulness of his conduct if they are supported by 'substantial evidence-that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value- from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the requisite finding under the governing standard of proof.'" (Ibid.) "The trier of fact, not the appellate court, must be convinced of the minor's guilt, and if the circumstances and reasonable inferences justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal of the judgment." (Ibid.)
B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's Finding That Minor Understood the Wrongfulness of Her Conduct
Minor's age, experience, and the circumstances of the offense demonstrate that she understood the wrongfulness of her conduct. (See James B., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 872.) She was approximately 12 years seven months old at the time of the incident. The closer a child is to the age of 14, the more likely it is that she appreciates the wrongfulness of her conduct. (James B., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at pp. 872-873.) Courts have upheld section 26 findings that a minor understood the wrongfulness or his or her conduct for children younger than the minor subject to the allegations in this case. (See In re Joseph H. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 517, 522, 539-540 [10 years old]; In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289, 298 [11 years old].)
Further, minor's prior experience of being suspended from school for fighting reveals that she understood the wrongfulness of her conduct. Mr. R. testified that, as head of discipline at minor's school, he had suspended her twice for fighting. He further testified that as part of the suspension process, he and/or the other vice principal would talk to the student about the particular rule violated and the consequences of the violation. The court could reasonably infer that Mr. R. employed this process with minor during her two suspensions, and that it was explained to her that fighting was prohibited. Mr. R. also testified that upon return from suspension, a student was required to meet with a counselor to talk about the subject behavior and what the proper conduct would have been, and to discuss the difference between good and bad behavior and make a plan to ensure the student would not reoffend. Mr. R. confirmed that minor had completed the required suspension counseling, as verified in Aeries. Accordingly, minor's experience with two prior school suspensions for fighting demonstrated she knew that fighting was against school policy and her conduct in the current incident was wrong.
In addition, the behavioral education program at minor's school supported the finding that she understood the wrongfulness of her conduct. Mr. R. testified that the school provided classroom instruction on behavioral expectations throughout the year. It posted announcements in classrooms and all around the school, describing the proper way to behave, and had video announcements regarding trends in student behavior. The school also gave everyone student agendas, which included expectations, rules, and policies, and were reviewed the first week of school. These materials discussed the Education Code, specifically the section on fighting, and what would happen if students violated the code. Mr. R. testified that the school commonly told the students that "we need to keep our hands to ourselves." In light of all this instruction on proper student behavior and school expectations, it was reasonable for the court to infer that minor appreciated the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of the incident.
Finally, the circumstances of the offense indicated that minor understood the wrongfulness of her conduct. The evidence showed that she and her friends followed the victim into the school restroom, away from the general area where they could be seen. Minor was heard on one of the videos encouraging A.S. to fight the victim. The evidence also showed that minor punched the victim multiple times and tried to kick her. The fight ended when it appeared that a teacher was approaching the restroom, and the girls left. Minor contends the evidence merely established that she left the restroom with the other girls after the fight ended. However, one of the videos showed that minor told everyone to stop, and then she and the other girls "rushed out" of the restroom. The circumstances of the offense-that minor followed the victim into the restroom, hit her and encouraged others to participate in the fight, told everyone to stop when someone was coming, and fled the scene-demonstrate her effort to conceal the incident and her knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct. (See People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 379.)
Minor appears to argue that the juvenile court could not base its section 26 finding on Mr. R.'s testimony, claiming his testimony was not specific and he was only speculating about her history of suspension and counseling. She asserts that Mr. R. did not testify to any specifics, but "merely believed she had been suspended at least once for fighting and only assumed she had completed suspension counseling before returning to school following the suspension." (Italics added.) The record belies minor's claims. Mr. R. testified that he knew about minor's disciplinary history because he either "[saw] it firsthand" or incidents were reported to him as the vice principal overseeing student discipline. Mr. R. further testified that he personally suspended minor two times. When asked if he remembered the instances he had been involved with minor, he said, "Personally, I believe there-I know of two situations where she broke Ed[ucation] Code 48900 (a)(1) which is fighting." (Italics added.) He specifically recalled one of the instances related to assaulting a school employee. Mr. R. also testified that he knew minor completed the requisite suspension counseling, since her completion was documented in Aeries, which he reviewed. Thus, contrary to minor's claim, Mr. R.'s testimony was based on his personal knowledge of her history, not mere speculation.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, as we must, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that minor understood the wrongfulness of her conduct.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MILLER Acting P. J. MENETREZ J.