59 Cal.App.5th 52
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Petitioner (a minor) was charged in a juvenile delinquency proceeding and sought to appear physically in juvenile court; Yolo Superior Court denied the motion on July 30, 2020.
- Yolo County issued Temporary COVID-19 Local Rules (TLR 6 and 8) making juvenile appearances presumptively remote unless the court finds good cause for in-person appearance.
- The Judicial Council issued emergency rules during COVID-19 (notably Emergency Rules 3, 5, and 7) authorizing remote juvenile delinquency proceedings and stating criminal defendants’ consent is required for remote appearances.
- Trial court held Welfare & Institutions Code § 679 (minor is “entitled to be present”) did not guarantee physical presence and concluded the Judicial Council’s emergency rules did not require a minor’s consent because a minor is not a “defendant.”
- The Court of Appeal independently reviewed the statutes and emergency rules, held § 679 entitles a minor to physical presence, and interpreted Emergency Rules 7 and 3 to require a minor’s consent before remote juvenile delinquency hearings.
- The appellate court issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to grant petitioner’s motion to appear physically and ruled TLRs 6 and 8 are invalid to the extent they conflict with § 679 and the emergency rules.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | People/Yolo Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Welf. & Inst. Code § 679 entitle a minor to physical presence at juvenile hearings? | § 679’s wording “to be present” means physical presence; statute predates remote tech. | § 679 grants only a right to presence, not necessarily personal/physical presence. | § 679 grants a statutory right to physically appear in person at juvenile hearings. |
| Do Judicial Council emergency rules require a minor’s consent before a juvenile delinquency hearing is held remotely? | Emergency Rules 7 (incorporating Rule 3) and 3 require consent analogous to criminal defendants; apply in juvenile context. | Emergency rules’ consent requirement applies only to adult “defendants” in criminal proceedings—not juveniles. | Emergency Rules 7 and 3, read together, require a minor’s consent before a remote juvenile delinquency hearing. |
| Do Yolo County Temporary Local Rules 6 and 8 conflict with § 679 and the emergency rules by presumptively mandating remote juvenile appearances? | TLRs conflict with § 679 and the emergency rules and cannot bar physical presence absent a minor’s consent or good cause. | TLRs are necessary for health and safety during the pandemic and authorize presumptive remote appearances. | TLRs 6 and 8 are invalid to the extent they require remote juvenile appearances absent consent or other lawful basis; court must permit physical presence when the minor exercises the right. |
| Was it harmless that petitioner appeared remotely and thus no writ is needed? | Denying writ would allow continued categorical exclusion of minors from physical presence in delinquency cases. | Remote appearance was harmless and petitioner could have waited until pandemic subsided. | Not harmless as a general rule here; appellate relief required because trial court adopted a blanket rule precluding physical presence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.G., 159 Cal.App.4th 1056 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (construing “to be present” to mean physical, in-person presence)
- In re Sydney M., 162 Cal.App.3d 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (minor’s right to be present can be waived only knowingly and intelligently)
- In re E.G., 6 Cal.App.5th 871 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (court may apply adult-criminal terminology in juvenile context when context shows applicability)
- In re M.P., 52 Cal.App.5th 1013 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (discussing court operations during COVID-19)
- Stanley v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.App.5th 164 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (scope of emergency judicial authority during pandemic)
- Citizens to Save California v. California Fair Political Practices Com., 145 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (avoid resolving constitutional issues when statutory grounds suffice)
- James G. v. Superior Court, 80 Cal.App.4th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (superior court may appear in appellate proceedings to defend its procedures)
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. 1984) (procedural authority for issuing peremptory writ in first instance)