Junior B., In re
| Decision Date | 02 June 1969 |
| Citation | 273 Cal.App.2d 607,78 Cal.Rptr. 436 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re Preston JUNIOR B., a Minor, Appellant. Civ. 1033. |
The minor, aged 15 years at the time of his hearing in the juvenile court, appeals from the judgment finding him to be a ward of that court by reason of his breach of the law in making lewd telephone calls to one of his teachers. The petition filed February 7, 1968, states that he comes within the provisions of section 602 of the Juvenile Court Law in that 'said minor, Preston Junior (B.) on or about the 23rd day of January, 1968, with intent to annoy did make a lewd telephone call to Mrs. Eileen Risley, thereby violating section 653m of the Penal Code of California.' The petition names the parents of the minor. He was represented at all stages of the hearing by Fresno attorney, Annette La Rue, who also acts for him on the appeal.
There is no question but that some minor made the lewd telephone calls to Mrs. Eileen Risley, a teacher at the Washington Union High School. The essential subject of conflict between the affirmative findings of the court and the negative testimony of Preston Junior B. is the identity of the telephone caller. The experienced trial judge, who heard the testimony in detail, was of the opinion that Preston Junior B. was the male adolescent who made the lewd calls to his teacher. On the contrary, Preston Junior B. maintains stoutly that he did not telephone to her. We have in mind the rule enunciated by the Supreme Court of California that the trial judge in matters of this kind is required to decide a factual question in accordance with a preponderance of the evidence, rather than to a moral certainty and beyond all reasonable doubt. (In re Dennis M., 70 A.C. 460, 75 Cal.Rptr. 1, 450 P.2d 296.) A review of the record of evidence and a consideration of the arguments of counsel, both orally in this court and in their briefs, has convinced us that the trial judge had before him substantial evidence of the guilt of the minor defendant, and that his conclusion that Preston Junior B. was a fit and proper subject for further proceedings as a ward of the juvenile court was correct.
It was proven beyond question that someone with the voice and psychology of a male minor called Mrs. Eileen Risley, teacher at Washington Union High School, on several occasions. In each of these instances, this person asked if the recipient of the call was named Mrs. Eileen Risley, and when the answer given was 'Yes' the person refused to answer as to what his own name was unless Mrs. Risley would consent to an act of sexual intercourse with him; the caller used a lewd phrase known to most juveniles. On the last day on which a call was made, Mrs. Risley, wishing to identify and perhaps to punish the person who was thus annoying her, seemed to agree to the request and asked directions where she could find the caller. He referred her to a place where he would wait for her, said he would give her $100 for her favors, and described the roads for her approach to where he would be, saying that he would wait for her at a standpipe within view of the road at a specified time. She said she could not get there by four o'clock but would arrive as soon as she could.
She consulted two male teachers, one the dean of boys at the school and the other named John Castle, who was not only a teacher but a special deputy sheriff. Upon request, Mr. Castle was ordered by the sheriff's office to accompany Mrs. Risley to the point of rendezvous. Mr. Castle got his pistol from his own car and then hid himself by lying down on the floor board of the back seat of Mrs. Risley's automobile; the two went in search of the culprit who had made the telephone calls. Originally, Mrs. Risley did not find the place of rendezvous, but finally she came upon the little dirt road by a canal, which had been described to her on the telephone, and saw Preston Junior B. near a standpipe which coincided with the description which had been given by the telephone caller.
He waved to his teacher to come toward where he was, and he then started across the rough terrain formed by the nearby canal. When he had almost...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gerald B., In re
...83 Cal.App.3d 285, 294, 147 Cal.Rptr. 771; In re Ricardo M. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 744, 751, 125 Cal.Rptr. 291; In re Preston B. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 607, 611, 78 Cal.Rptr. 436; In re Bacon (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 34, 63, 49 Cal.Rptr. Summary Enforcement Gerald's principal challenge is directe......
-
In re Trevor W.
...119, 125, 164 Cal.Rptr. 193; In re John S. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 285, 289, 147 Cal. Rptr. 771; see also In re Preston B. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 607, 608, 78 Cal.Rptr. 436 [pre-Ricardo Indeed, Ricardo M. found the authority for imposing juvenile hall as a condition of probation in section 730.......
-
In re: People v. Trevor W.
...873, 875-876; In re Gerald B. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 119, 125; In re John S. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 285, 289; see also In re Preston B. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 607, 608 [pre-Ricardo Indeed, Ricardo M. found the authority for imposing juvenile hall as a condition of probation in section 730. As t......
-
Ricardo M., In re
...in juvenile hall as determined by the hall's staff. The issue is one in which decisions of the Court of Appeal in In re Preston B., 273 Cal.App.2d 607, 78 Cal.Rptr. 436, and In re Bacon, 240 Cal.App.2d 34, 49 Cal.Rptr. 322, on the one hand, and In re Debra A., 48 Cal.App.3d 327, 121 Cal.Rpt......