F., In re
Decision Date | 12 March 1969 |
Citation | 270 Cal.App.2d 603,75 Cal.Rptr. 887 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re Steven F., a Minor. Robert E. NINO, Chief Probation Officer of Santa Clara County, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven F., Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 25443. |
Caputo, Liccardo, Burriesci & Hogan, by Frank C. Burriesci, San Jose, for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of the State of California, John T. Murphy, Gloria F. DeHart, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
Steven F., a minor, appeals from an order of the juvenile court adjudging him to be a ward of that court and from an 'order of probation' thereafter entered. (See Welf. & Inst.Code, § 800, relating to right of appeal.)
The principal contentions are that the court erred in (1) applying the 'preponderance of evidence' test prescribed by Welfare and Institutions Code section 701 rather than that of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' and (2) considering, before the jurisdictional hearing, a probation officer's report containing material both inadmissible and prejudicial on the issue of jurisdiction.
Both of these questions are set at rest by appellate court decisions filed since the perfection of the instant appeal.
In re Dennis, M., 70 A.C. 460, 75 Cal.Rptr. 1, 450 P.2d 296, squarely holds that the 'preponderance of evidence' test is properly applied in proceedings under section 701. The 'reasonable doubt' concept, which appellant insists is required under the standards announced by In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, was rejected. We consider In re Dennis M., supra, conclusive on the instant issue. (See also In re J.F., 268 A.C.A. 819, 830, 831, 74 Cal.Rptr. 464.)
We now discuss the second of Steven's contentions. The juvenile court proceedings were based on a petition alleging that appellant had committed an assault with a deadly weapon, a violation of Penal Code section 245. The offense was denied by Steven. At the conclusion of the contested jurisdictional hearing, immediately after the court had found appellant to have committed the charged offense and, consequently, within its jurisdiction, it stated, The probation report contains much hearsay prejudicial matter, including an unfavorable social study, all unrelated to the charged offense, and concludes with recommendations 'That the allegations of the Petition * * * be found to be true as alleged,' and 'That the said minor be found to come within the provisions and description of Section 602 of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gladys R., In re
...error in reviewing the social study report before the jurisdictional hearing (Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 701, 702, 706; In re Steven F. (1969) 270 A.C.A. 643, 75 Cal.Rptr. 887; In re Corey (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 295, 296, 73 Cal.Rptr. 115). We also conclude that the juvenile court should consider......
-
Steven C., In re
...In re Johnson, 227 Cal.App.2d 37, 39, 38 Cal.Rptr. 405; In re Castro, 243 Cal.App.2d 402, 408, 52 Cal.Rptr. 469; In re Steven F., 270 Cal.App.2d 603, 604, 75 Cal.Rptr. 887.) Although the Winship case does not indicate whether its decision operates prospectively only, we deem it applicable t......
-
People v. Arauz
...protect him is in violation of the rule established in In re Corey, 266 Cal.App.2d 295, 72 Cal.Rptr. 115, reiterated in In re Steven F., 270 A.C.A. 643, 75 Cal.Rptr. 887. Corey construed the requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 701, 702 and 706, and did not deal with sect......
-
Joseph G., In re
...701, 702 and 706, as explicated in In re R., Supra; In re Corey, 266 Cal.App.2d 295, 296, 72 Cal.Rptr. 115; and In re Steven F., 270 Cal.App.2d 603, 75 Cal.Rptr. 887, is designed to provide a jurisdictional hearing at which competent evidence is adduced, and to make certain the jurisdiction......