People v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 17 July 1985 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jesse Juarez SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant. E000091. |
Arthur E. Cooper, Seal Beach, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Frederick R. Millar, Jr. and Jeffrey J. Koch, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and Christopher N. Heard, Legal Director, San Jose, as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and respondent.
The defendant Jesse Juarez Sanchez was found guilty by a jury of one count of robbery. He was sentenced to state prison for the middle term of three years. The execution of sentence was stayed and he was placed on probation with certain terms and conditions, including a period of incarceration.
Sanchez appeals, contending the trial court erred in: (1) ruling that his juvenile court adjudication could be used for impeachment purposes; and (2) permitting rehabilitation of a witness through the use of prior consistent statements. Sanchez does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict. The facts will be discussed as necessary to resolve his other contentions.
Sanchez correctly contends the trial court erred in ruling his prior juvenile court adjudication could be utilized for impeachment purposes. He is wrong that this ruling constituted prejudicial error.
The trial court found that Sanchez' recent juvenile adjudication of felony conduct (burglary) met both the Beagle and constitutional tests for admissibility. (People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1; Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (f).) At the same time, it declined to allow an adjudication of theft of a vehicle (Veh.Code, § 10851) for impeachment purposes. The burglary was committed by Sanchez when he was almost 18 and the vehicle theft when he was 15. The Beagle analysis, though helpful in evaluating prejudice, is irrelevant unless the Constitution changed existing law. We need not tarry too long over this issue. Article 1, section 28, subdivision (f), provides in pertinent part: "Any prior felony conviction of any person in any criminal proceeding, whether adult or juvenile, shall subsequently be used without limitation for purposes of impeachment or enhancement of sentence in any criminal proceeding." (Emphasis supplied.)
This language by its terms precludes the use of juvenile adjudications for impeachment. Juvenile adjudication is a civil and not a criminal proceeding even though due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that criminal rules of evidence be utilized. A juvenile's delinquency may consist of felony activity, but an adjudication as such is not a felony conviction. (See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 311, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149; People v. Gomez (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 139, 143, 313 P.2d 58.) "As section 203 states, '[a]n order adjudging a minor to be a ward of the juvenile court shall not be deemed a conviction of a crime for any purpose, nor shall a proceeding in the juvenile court be deemed a criminal proceeding.' . omitted. " (In re Joseph B. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 952, 955, 196 Cal.Rptr. 348, 671 P.2d 852.) We conclude Sanchez' juvenile adjudication of burglary is neither a felony conviction nor did it occur in a criminal proceeding, therefore, the court's ruling is error.
Sanchez' contention this error is prejudicial requires a different result. First, the trial court weighed the factors in Beagle and with full knowledge defendant would decline to testify found the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect. Had the juvenile adjudication been a prior criminal conviction, the ruling of the court would have been correct.
Second, we are not required to speculate as to what Sanchez' testimony would have been had he testified. Sanchez' testimony may be gleaned from statements made by his attorney at time of sentencing. He indicated, from the flow of the evidence during trial, he believed Sanchez should not testify and should rely on the defense asserted--mistaken I.D. He then changed gears and said if Sanchez had not feared impeachment he would have testified and his testimony would have been consistent with the latest probation report.
The latest probation report revealed Sanchez' defense would have been: (a) he and the codefendant were going to the local market for purposes of picking up some beer and running out without paying for it, (b) the codefendant had a toy rifle and defendant had no weapon, (c) defendant remained outside of the store while the codefendant went in, (d) he saw the codefendant take a 12-pack of beer and set it on the counter then walk behind the counter and point the gun at one of the clerks, (e) defendant went in and told the codefendant he should leave before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Jose C.
...35) and as genuinely civil (e.g., In re Derrick B. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 535, 540, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 13, 139 P.3d 485; People v. Sanchez (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 216, 218, 216 Cal.Rptr. 21; Welf. & Inst.Code, § 203). In truth, they are hybrid proceedings, and the question whether a wardship proceedin......
-
People v. Burton
... ... (E.g., People v. Weidert (1985) 39 Cal.3d 836, 844-847, 218 Cal.Rptr. 57, 705 P.2d 380; In re Joseph B. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 952, 955, 196 Cal.Rptr. 348, 671 P.2d 852; Leroy T. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 434, 439, 115 Cal.Rptr. 761, 525 P.2d 665; People v. Sanchez (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 216, 218-219, 216 Cal.Rptr. 21; see also People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 294-295, 247 Cal.Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052.) ... We must assume that the voters, when they enacted section 190.3, were aware of Welfare and Institutions Code section 203 and judicial ... ...
-
In re Derrick B.
... 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 13 ... 39 Cal.4th 535 ... 139 P.3d 485 ... In re DERRICK B., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law ... The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, ... Derrick B., Defendant and Appellant ... No. S124205 ... Supreme Court of California ... August 10, 2006 ... 348, 671 P.2d 852]; Leroy T. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 434, 439 [115 Cal.Rptr. 761, 525 P.2d 665]; People v. Sanchez (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 216, 218-219 [216 Cal.Rptr. 21]; see also People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 294-295 [247 Cal.Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052].)" ... ...
-
Adcock v. Haws
...admissible as impeachment evidence. See People v. Olivencia, 204 Cal. App. 3d 1391 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (citing People v. Sanchez, 170 Cal. App. 3d 216, 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)). Finally, it is obvious that the prosecutor could not have disclosed evidence of J.B.'s arrest for first degree ......
-
Table of Cases null
...§7; §7.1.2 People v. Sanchez, 174 Cal. App. 3d 343, 220 Cal. Rptr. 53 (6th Dist. 1985)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.2(2)(a)[1] People v. Sanchez, 170 Cal. App. 3d 216, 216 Cal. Rptr. 21 (4th Dist. 1985)—Ch. 4-B, §3.5.1(1)(a)[3] People v. Sanchez, 148 Cal. App. 3d 62, 195 Cal. Rptr. 558 (4th Dist. 1983)—Ch......
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Specific types of impeachment evidence
...in criminal convictions (even for felony conduct) and thus cannot be used for impeachment purposes. People v. Sanchez (4th Dist.1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 216, 218; see Welfare & Inst. C. §203. If the earlier juvenile adjudication was for misconduct involving moral turpitude, however, the underly......