In re Eduardo P. CA5, F081554

Juvenile wardship petition filed alleging minor (Eduardo P.) brandished a firearm on Nov. 3, 2018; court later dismissed a criminal‑threats count and added the brandishing allegation under Penal Code § 417(a)(2).
Eyewitness Marvin testified he saw minor and minor’s father exit a vehicle at a gas station; Marvin said both had guns, and he specifically saw minor hold a gun behind his back before they drove off.
Minor testified denying possession or presence with his father that day; Sergeant Torres testified minor previously gave inconsistent statements about his father’s residence.
Defense sought to admit a June 2018 911 call and police report (minor’s allegation that Marvin pulled a knife) to impeach Marvin; the juvenile court excluded that evidence as hearsay/irrelevant.
The juvenile court found the brandishing allegation true, adjudged wardship, and imposed probation including 15 days in juvenile hall; on appeal minor challenged evidentiary sufficiency and the exclusion of the impeachment evidence.
The Court of Appeal held the eyewitness testimony and reasonable inferences supported the brandishing finding and that any error excluding the proffered impeachment evidence was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove brandishing a firearm	Marvin’s eyewitness testimony was credible; he saw a gun and jury could infer it was real from circumstantial facts	Marvin’s testimony was improbable or impossible and the object might not have been an actual firearm	Evidence sufficient: single witness testimony not inherently improbable; trier could infer a real firearm; finding affirmed
Exclusion of 911 call and police‑report testimony (impeachment)	Proffered statements were hearsay and remote in time, thus inadmissible and irrelevant	Exclusion prevented impeachment of Marvin and showing motive to fabricate; evidence should have been admitted	Any error was harmless: court already credited Marvin had animus and credibility issues but still found his testimony believable; exclusion would not have produced a more favorable outcome

In re Matthew A., 165 Cal.App.4th 537 (standard of review for juvenile sufficiency follows criminal cases)
People v. Flores, 9 Cal.5th 371 (apply deferential substantial‑evidence review and inferential reasoning)
People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (single witness testimony can support conviction unless impossible or inherently improbable)
People v. Thornton, 11 Cal.3d 738 (credibility conflicts do not mandate reversal absent physical impossibility or apparent falsity)
People v. Monjaras, 164 Cal.App.4th 1432 (firearm existence may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
People v. Green, 166 Cal.App.3d 514 (circumstantial proof of weapons admissible)
People v. Bradford, 15 Cal.4th 1229 (harmless‑error standard for erroneous evidentiary rulings)
People v. Dement, 53 Cal.4th 1 (right to present a defense not violated when court gives leeway to attack credibility but excludes remote, minimally probative evidence)
People v. Flannel, 25 Cal.3d 668 (discussing limits on overturning credibility determinations)