F., In re

Decision Date12 March 1969
Citation270 Cal.App.2d 603,75 Cal.Rptr. 887
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesIn 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.

ELKINGTON, Associate Justice.

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, 'Now, in order to assist the court in making a disposition of the case, the probation officer has prepared for the court a special report called a social study. This study has been submitted to the court and is now admitted into evidence. The court has read and reviewed it thoroughly.' 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
8 cases
  • Gladys R., In re
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1970
    ...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
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 1970
    ...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
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 17, 1970
  • Joseph G., In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 18, 1970
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT