Schubert, In re
| Decision Date | 07 August 1957 |
| Citation | 313 P.2d 968,153 Cal.App.2d 138 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Matter of Brian Lee SCHUBERT, a person under the age of twenty-one years. In the Matter of James Lee STOCKWELL, a person under the age of twenty-one years. Civ. 22437, 22438. |
Brumer & Hopson, by John R. Hopson, Beverly Hills, for appellants Schubert and Stockwell.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent People.
The appeals of these two boys ordered wards of the Juvenile Court, were argued, briefed, and submitted together. Testimony in one case was by stipulation considered in the other.
The factual background of the boys is so different, however, that a separate opinion has been written for each one.
The Appeal of Brian Lee Schubert.
This boy is sixteen years old. His father is out of town Monday through Friday; home on weekends. His mother runs a beauty shop. His maternal grandmother lives in the home, and attempts to look out for the boy.
While economic conditions may sometimes require a father and mother to both work, this situation often leads to serious trouble for boys or girls, as happened in this case.
In 1956 Brian and some companions burglarized a restaurant in Pomona, and took five cases of beer. Before that, he, with others, rifled the contents of glove compartments in automobiles.
Because of this conduct Brian was declared a ward of the Juvenile Court, and was sent home with his parents under a program of supervision, guidance and counseling by the Probation Officer.
But worse was yet to come.
January 1, 1957, Brian, with others, was in a shooting scrape in Pasadena, in the early morning before the Rose Bowl parade. One of his companions had a revolver, and Brian knew he had it. These boys got into an altercation with another group of boys, and they all went down an alley to fight it out. During the fight in the alley the gun was thrown from one boy to another. The boy who last got possession of the gun shot and seriously wounded two of his opponents. When Brian saw the gun pulled he took off.
One victim of the shooting said,
But after the shooting Brian with two other boys left Pasadena, went to Long Beach, and got rid of the gun. They were picked up by the police that afternoon.
Brian told the juvenile officers that he made three mistakes: First, in going along when he knew one of the other boys had a gun; secondly, in going into the alley when he knew a fight was in the making; and, thirdly, in leaving Pasadena and not turning himself in to the authorities there.
After hearing the evidence, the trial judge amended the juvenile petition so that the conduct charged was a misdemeanor instead of a felony. This was so the boy could enlist in the armed services if he wanted to. Minors whose records show participation in felonies are not welcomed in the army or the navy.
Then the judge redeclared the boy a ward of the Juvenile Court, ordered him committed to Youth Authority, and released him to his parents under a program of probation and supervision by the Probation Officer.
The minor, through his father, appeals from this order.
It would seem that this boy had little to gain and much to lose by this appeal. He had been treated with leniency, kindness, and consideration, notwithstanding his record and public indignation over gang fighting by young hoodlums. He was at home, and his name was in the Juvenile Court files not open to public inspection. Now anyone who reads the reports of the courts of review of this state will know what his record is.
The briefs in both these cases argue this as a problem in criminal law. But rules of the criminal law do not necessarily apply to proceedings in the Juvenile Court.
While the Juvenile Court law may not be used as a means of denying to a minor a constitutional right, or a guarantee given by law to an adult (In re Contreras, 109 Cal.App.2d 787, 791, 241 P.2d 631), it it to be liberally construed (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 551).
Proceedings in the Juvenile Court are not criminal, and an order adjudging a boy or a girl a ward of that court is not a conviction of a crime (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 736); it is more in the nature of a guardianship. In re Magnuson, 110 Cal.App.2d 73, 242 P.2d 362; People v. Silverstein, 121 Cal.App.2d 140, 143, 262 P.2d 656.
The primary purpose of the Juvenile Court is to supplant parental supervision which has been lacking so that a minor may not become a criminal but may grow up a useful member of society. People v. Renteria, 60 Cal.App.2d 463, 470, 141 P.2d 37; People v. Deibert, 117 Cal.App.2d 410, 415, 256 P.2d 355.
The jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court extends to any person under twenty-one years of age who comes within specified descriptions.
This boy was found to come within the provisions of subdivision (m) of section 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, one 'Who violates any law of this State or any ordinance of any town, city, or county, of this State defining crime.'
The brief on appeal stresses the argument that Brian would have been acquitted in a trial court of taking part in the crime of assault with a deadly weapon or of the crime of aiding and abetting it, a misdemeanor found by the trial judge.
This is the merest speculation. The boy was there. He knew that one of his companions had a gun. He knew that they were going into the alley to fight. After the shooting he ran away and helped dispose of the deadly weapon. Many men are serving long terms in our penitentiaries on evidence not as substantial as that.
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schoonover v. Elford (In re Elford)
...juvenile court proceedings are in the nature of guardianship proceedings ( In re Bacon (1966), 240 Cal.App.2d 34, 45 ; In re Schubert (1957), 153 Cal. App.2d 138, 141 and are concerned primarily with the welfare of the juvenile. ( In re Florance (1956), 47 Cal.2d 25, 28 ; In re Colar (1970)......
-
Bacon, In re
...in the juvenile court is not a criminal proceeding. (§ 503.) It is instead in the nature of a guardianship. (In re Schubert, 153 Cal.App.2d 138, 141, 313 P.2d 968.) Moreover, section 680 specifically provides that 'Except where there is a contested issue of fact or law, the proceedings shal......
-
Corey, In re
...to support them. (In re Corrigan, supra, p. 754, 286 p.2d 32; In re Ayers, 116 Cal.App.2d 55, 58, 253 P.2d 65; In re Schubert, 153 Cal.App.2d 138, 143, 313 P.2d 968.) Before proceeding to the questions of identity and alibi we set out the following evidence disclosed by the record. On Novem......
-
Steven C., In re
...but one to supplant parental supervision which has been lacking so that the minor will not become a criminal. (§ 503; In re Schubert, 153 Cal.App.2d 138, 141, 313 P.2d 968; In re Bacon, 240 Cal.App.2d 34, 45, 49 Cal.Rptr. 322; see In re Florance, supra.) Nor is he acting as an attorney in v......