THE PEOPLE v. SPENCER K

• Decision Date: 26 January 2011
• Docket Number: No. G042656,No. DL031749,G042656,DL031749
• Parties: In re SPENCER K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SPENCER K., Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

In re SPENCER K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SPENCER K., Defendant and Appellant.

No. G042656

No. DL031749

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Filed 1/26/11

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald P. Kreber, Judge. Affirmed.

Correen Ferrentino, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf, Collette C. Cavalier and Scott Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the trial court declared Spencer K. (the minor) a ward of the court and placed him on probation after it found true an allegation that he committed an act constituting aggravated assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurisdictional finding, the court's restriction of his cross-examination of a prosecution witness about the witness's recent theft-related offense, and its imposition of a search and seizure condition as part of his probation. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS

Shortly after 8 p.m. one late December evening, a fight erupted in the street outside the Brant residence after Chris Brant confronted a group of young people over the fact their horseplay resulted in damage to his wife's car. Chris Brant approached some individuals standing in the street, cursing at them, demanded their names and addresses, and said they would have to pay for the vehicle's damage. The ensuing altercation resulted in Chris Brant being hit and kicked by several individuals and requiring medical treatment. As a result, Chris Brant suffered cuts and bruises requiring medical attention.

The parties presented conflicting evidence on who was the aggressor and as to the identity of the persons who struck Chris Brant. The prosecution's witnesses testified that when Chris Brant asked for the names of the people who damaged the car, someone shoved him. Three to four individuals standing nearby began to move closer to him. Chris Brant, in turn, shoved one member of the group, backed up, and took afighting stance. At that point, Michael M. struck Chris Brant in the face, knocking off his glasses and forcing his head backwards so that it struck the car behind him. Chris Brant then fell to the ground where several persons struck and kicked him numerous times.

Shaun Brant, Chris Brant's teenage son, testified he and a friend were outside the house about to leave when the confrontation occurred. He yelled at the group to stop hitting his father and the attackers began to back away and leave the area. Shaun Brant testified he saw the minor walking away, yelling, "You just got your ass beat by... a 16-year-old." During an in-field showup conducted by sheriff's deputies later that evening, Shaun Brant identified the minor as one of the persons who struck his father. But, at trial, he testified "I can't say that I actually saw him punching or kicking my dad...." On cross-and redirect examination, Shaun Brant claimed that, at school, the minor told him how to testify. He claimed the minor called him a name and said, "Hey, look, I have a really good future in front of me.... I was so drunk that night I don't remember anything, but all I remember is that I did not hit your dad."

Chris Brant identified the minor as one of the teenagers that initially confronted him the night of the incident, but he could not identify him as one of the persons who hit him. The next day, the minor appeared at the Brant residence to apologize for what happened the previous night. Chris Brant testified the minor "seemed aggravated and angry... like he didn't want to be there" and said, "You didn't see me hit you, did you?"

Cody Warren testified he was with Shaun Brant the night of the incident. Warren identified the minor as one of the persons who struck Chris Brant during the fight, both at an in-field showup later that evening and at trial.

The defense called several witnesses who claimed Chris Brant was the aggressor and who denied the minor struck Chris Brant during the fracas. The minor testified in his defense, denying he struck Chris Brant and claiming Warren held a grudgeagainst him because of an incident when the two collided while surfing several years earlier.

DISCUSSION

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The minor challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a finding he participated in the assault on Chris Brant. He claims "[t]he prosecution premised its case largely on the testimony of one witness, Cody Warren, who was the only witness to testify that [the minor] hit Brant," and argues Warren's testimony is "not reliable since it is lacking in detail, riddled with inconsistencies, at odds with other eyewitness testimony, not supported by circumstantial evidence and biased...." This contention lacks merit.

"When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]... We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact reasonably could infer from the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. [Citation.]" (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.) This standard of review applies to "juvenile proceedings involving criminal acts...." (In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809; see also In re James B. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 862, 872.)

Warren's credibility notwithstanding, the trial court relied on other evidence to find the petition's allegations true. The court cited Shaun Brant's on-scene identification of the minor as one of the persons who struck his father. It also relied on the minor's flight from the altercation, his statement shortly after it occurred that "[a] 16-year-old has just kicked your ass," plus his apology to Chris Brant the next day as reflecting a consciousness of guilt on his part.

Furthermore, contrary to the minor's argument, the trial court concluded Warren was a credible witness. It expressly found his testimony that the minor "punched... Brant[] to be true," and concluded Warren had "no vendetta... to testify against [the minor] over a surfing dispute...." "A reviewing court neither reweighs evidence nor reevaluates a witness's credibility. [Citation.]" (People v. Lindberg, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 27.) Hence, "[c]onflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment...." (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403; see also People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 296 ["The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable"].)

In his reply brief, the minor claims the duty "not [to] view [the] evidence in a vacuum[] or out of context," plus the need for "evidence 'of solid value' that reasonably supports an inference of guilt," requires "this court [to] examine the nature and quality of Warren's testimony." (Italics omitted.) A similar argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983. There the defendant challenged the admissibility of the testimony of a jailhouse informant, citing the witness's "dubious background, his obvious motive to fabricate evidence for his own benefit, and the inconsistency of his statements...." (Id. at pp. 995-996, fn. omitted.) Acknowledging the general rule that "'[e]xcept in... rare instances of demonstrable falsity, doubts about the credibility of [an] in-court witness should be left for the jury's resolution'" (id. at p. 996, quoting People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 609), the defendant claimed the informant's "'reliability is not simply a determination of credibility for the jury, '" because an appellate "'court must ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value'" (People v. Hovarter, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 996).

The Supreme Court rejected this argument. "[The d]efendant confuses two standards. At trial, 'it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends.' [Citation.] On appeal, an appellate court deciding whether sufficient evidence supports a verdict must determine whether the record contains substantial evidence.... 'In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, "the relevant question on appeal is not whether we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt" [citation], but "whether '"any rational trier of fact"' could have been so persuaded."' [Citation.] Because a rational trier of fact could have found [the jailhouse informant] credible, we reject the claim that the trial court should have excluded his testimony as inherently incredible." (People v. Hovarter, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 996-997.)

Hovarter's analysis applies here as well. As noted, the juvenile court expressly found Warren to be a credible witness. The mere fact the evidence was...