48 Cal.App.5th 767
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In June 2017 E.L. was fatally shot; six juveniles, including appellant I.A., were in two cars driving through rival gang territory; Kushner admitted to shooting E.L. with a 9mm recovered later at Cathey’s residence.
- Investigators recovered 9mm casings at the scene and matching ammunition at Cathey’s home; I.A.’s DNA/fingerprints were not on the gun or casings.
- Prosecutors charged I.A. with murder (theory: natural and probable consequences), conspiracy, gang enhancements, and firearm enhancements; at adjudication the juvenile court sustained a second-degree murder finding under the natural-and-probable-consequences theory.
- After S.B. 1437/§1170.95 relief was sought and granted, the juvenile court vacated the murder finding and—over I.A.’s objection—redesignated it as findings that I.A. possessed a concealable firearm and committed vandalism (with gang enhancements).
- On appeal the court held the minor may challenge the sufficiency of evidence for redesignated offenses and reversed the firearm and vandalism findings, vacated related gang allegations, and ordered dismissal of the section 602 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) May a juvenile challenge sufficiency of evidence for offenses to which a vacated murder finding is redesignated under §1170.95? | Allowing appeal would conflict with §1170.95’s leniency and petitioner’s role; redesignation flows from petitioner’s action. | A minor retains due-process/appellate rights; redesignation was made by the court and can be challenged. | Juvenile may challenge sufficiency of evidence for redesignated offenses on appeal. |
| 2) Do doctrines of invited error or forfeiture bar review of redesignation? | I.A. invited the outcome by filing §1170.95 and thus cannot attack it; he failed to object to redesignation. | I.A. only sought vacatur, did not request redesignation, and did object when the court proposed specific redesignations; invited error/forfeiture inapplicable. | Invited error/forfeiture do not bar review here. |
| 3) Was there sufficient evidence I.A. possessed the 9mm (constructive possession)? | Facebook messages about guns, a photo of I.A. with a rifle, prior touching of the gun, and being present support constructive possession. | Proximity, knowledge, and prior talk about other weapons are insufficient; no evidence he exercised dominion or control over the 9mm used. | Insufficient evidence: conviction reversed—no substantial evidence of dominion/control over the murder weapon. |
| 4) Was there sufficient evidence I.A. committed vandalism (tagging)? | I.A.’s recorded statements and adoptive admissions plus accomplice talk about "tagging" support the finding. | Corpus delicti of vandalism not established independent of accomplice/extrajudicial statements; adoptive statements do not prove the act occurred. | Insufficient evidence: vandalism finding reversed for lack of independent proof of the crime and perpetration. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.G., 35 Cal.App.5th 141 (2019) (juvenile §1170.95 relief; discussion of redesignation).
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence).
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required).
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (2008) (substantial-evidence review described).
- People v. Bay, 40 Cal.App.5th 126 (2019) (actual vs. constructive possession definitions).
- In re Jorge M., 23 Cal.4th 866 (2000) (knowledge of a weapon’s presence alone insufficient for possession).
- People v. Sifuentes, 195 Cal.App.4th 1410 (2011) (possession cannot rest on mere possibility).
- In re D.A., 24 Cal.App.5th 768 (2018) (corpus delicti must be proved independent of defendant’s extrajudicial statements).
- Jones v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.3d 390 (1979) (accomplice statements cannot alone establish corpus delicti).
- People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (2003) (courts accept reasonable inferences but reject speculation under sufficiency review).