People v. B.M. (In re B.M.)

• Citation: 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 294,10 Cal.App.5th 1292
• Decision Date: 20 April 2017
• Docket Number: 2d Juv. No. B277076
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: IN RE B.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.M., Defendant and Appellant.

10 Cal.App.5th 1292

217 Cal.Rptr.3d 294

IN RE B.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.B.M., Defendant and Appellant.

2d Juv. No. B277076

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.

Filed April 20, 2017

Donna Ford, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

YEGAN, Acting P.J.

A common butter knife is designed to cut and spread butter. In the hand of a person bent on assaulting another, it may be a useful tool to inflict great bodily injury. Consistent with an express direction from the California Supreme Court (People v. McCoy (1944) 25 Cal.2d 177, 188–189, 153 P.2d 315 ) and time-honored rules on appeal, we conclude that the trial court's factual finding that the instant butter knife was a deadly weapon must be affirmed on appeal. To the extent that In re Brandon T. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1491, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 637 holds to the contrary, we respectfully disagree.

As we shall explain, an assault with a deadly weapon is complete when the defendant, with the requisite intent, uses an object in a manner which is capable of producing great bodily injury upon the victim. Such an assault is not negated by 1. the victim's use of a shield or body armor to prevent injury; or 2. ineptness or poor aim in the use of the object; or 3. lack of success in inflicting great bodily injury.

B.M. appeals from a juvenile court order declaring her a ward of the court and ordering her to serve 90 days in a juvenile justice facility. After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court sustained a petition charging that appellant committed a felony assault with a deadly weapon (a knife) in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1).

Relying on Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (Miranda ), appellant contends the juvenile court erroneously admitted statements she made to the police. She also contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that the knife she used was a deadly weapon. These contentions are without merit and we affirm.

Facts

Appellant, seventeen years old, was angry because she could not get inside the family home. Her mother had changed the locks to the house. She entered the house through a window and went into her sister's (S.M.) bedroom. She tried to pull S.M.'s hair out, threw a telephone at her, and left the room.¹ She returned carrying "a small ... knife, like a butter knife." It was "[t]he type of knife that you would use to butter a piece of toast." The knife was metal and about six inches long. The blade was about three inches long. "It wasn't ... sharp" and had "small ridges" along one side.

S.M. was lying on her back on a bed when appellant attacked her with the knife. She covered herself with a blanket for protection. The knife struck the blanket near her legs a "few times." Through the blanket, S.M. felt pressure from the knife. On a scale of one to ten with one being the least amount of pressure, the pressure was "[m]aybe like a five or a six." Instead of "pok[ing]" S.M. with the knife, appellant made a "slicing kind of" motion.

Appellant was "yelling" at S.M. who was terrified by the attack. When appellant left the bedroom, S.M. telephoned the police. The recording of her frantic call for help to the 911 operator was received by the juvenile court.

In response to the telephone call, Officer Ryan Reynosa drove to S.M.'s residence. On the way there, he was given a description and the name of the suspect. He saw appellant outside the residence "and asked her if her name was [B.M.]." Appellant replied, "Yes." Officer Reynosa testified, "I then asked her to walk over towards me and sit against the bumper by my marked patrol vehicle so I could talk to her about what had happened." Appellant complied with his request.

Officer Reynosa told appellant that he "had gotten a call of a fight inside the house and [he] asked her what ... happened." Appellant explained as follows: she arrived at the residence and had been unable to open the front door with her key. She believed that S.M. had rekeyed the lock. Appellant entered the residence through an unlocked window. She was "very upset." Appellant "grabbed ... what she described as a butter knife off of the kitchen counter and went upstairs to confront her sister [S.M.]." Upon entering her sister's bedroom, appellant "began yelling at [S.M.] ... and ... was holding the butter knife in her right hand and was pointing it at S.M." When S.M. told her to get out and threatened to call the police, appellant made "downward stabbing motion[s]" toward "the bedding ... that S.M. had pulled up over her." Appellant's intent was "to scare S.M." Appellant "then ran back downstairs and put the knife in the kitchen sink."

Appellant testified as follows: She had been living at the residence for two weeks. After entering the residence through a window, she grabbed a butter knife in "the heat of the moment." She "wanted to scare [S.M.]." While holding the knife, she approached S.M., who was sitting on her bed. Appellant was "yelling at her and cussing at her and telling her, ... ‘why did you ... change the locks?’ " When appellant "got close ... with the knife, [S.M.] covered herself with the blanket and started kicking her legs." Appellant was "pretty sure [the knife] probably did touch the blanket[ ] because [S.M.] was kicking it, and [appellant] was right there, like, touching the bed." The part of the knife that touched the blanket was the blade—"[t]he part where you would ... cut ... toast and stuff."

Alleged Miranda Violation

Appellant claims that her "constitutional rights were violated" because Officer Reynosa did not inform her of "her Miranda rights before detaining and questioning her." Based on the alleged Miranda violation, appellant moved to exclude her statements to Officer Reynosa. The juvenile court denied the motion. It found that appellant was not subjected to custodial interrogation.

"We apply a de novo standard of review to a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress [sic , exclude] under Miranda insofar as the trial court's underlying decision entails a measurement of [as here] undisputed facts against the law." (People v. Riva (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 981, 988, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 649.)

"It is settled that Miranda advisements are required only when a person is subjected to ‘custodial interrogation.’ [Citations.]" (People v. Davidson (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 966, 970, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 798.) "An interrogation is custodial when ‘a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.’ [Citation.] The test for Miranda custody is, ‘ "would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." ’ [Citation.] The objective circumstances of the interrogation are examined, not the ‘ "subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned." ’ [Citation.]" (People v. Kopatz (2015) 61 Cal.4th 62, 80, 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 797, 347 P.3d 952.)

In determining whether a person was subjected to custodial interrogation, "[t]he totality of the circumstances is considered and includes ‘(1) whether the suspect has been formally arrested; (2) absent formal arrest, the length of the detention; (3) the location; (4) the ratio of officers to suspects; and (5) the demeanor of the officer, including the nature of the questioning.’ [Citation.] Additional factors are whether the officer informed the person he or she was considered a witness or suspect, whether there were restrictions on the suspect's freedom of movement, whether the police were aggressive, confrontational, and/or accusatory, and whether the police used interrogation techniques to pressure the suspect. [Citation.]" (People v. Davidson , supra , 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 972, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 798.)

Based on the "totality of the circumstances," we conclude that appellant was not subjected to custodial interrogation. Officer Reynosa did not place her under arrest or handcuff her. He was the only officer present. The detention was not prolonged and occurred in a noncoercive atmosphere outside appellant's residence. Officer Reynosa's questioning was not aggressive, confrontational, or accusatory. He simply told her that he "had gotten a call of a fight inside the house and [he] asked her what ... happened." Reynosa did not use interrogation techniques to pressure appellant. He testified, "She was just telling me what happened." "[A] reasonable person in [appellant's] situation would have believed [s]he was free to leave at any time and to terminate the interview. ... The [juvenile] court correctly denied [appellant's] motion to suppress [sic, exclude] the interview." (People v. Kopatz , supra , 61 Cal.4th at p. 82, 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 797, 347 P.3d 952.)

Sufficiency of the Evidence

"The same standard governs review of the sufficiency of evidence in adult criminal cases and juvenile cases ...." (In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 119.) "In reviewing a criminal conviction challenged as lacking evidentiary support, ‘ "the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." ’ [Citation.]" (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1.) " ‘A finding ... based upon a reasonable inference ... will not be set aside by an appellate court unless it appears that the inference was wholly irreconcilable with the...