In re White
9 Cal.5th 455
| Cal. | 2020Background
- Christopher White (27) arrested and charged with attempted kidnapping with intent to commit rape, assault with intent to commit rape, contact with a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense, and false imprisonment involving a 15‑year‑old victim (J.D.).
- Preliminary hearing evidence included J.D.’s sworn testimony, White’s recorded police interviews, and sheriff’s testimony; evidence suggested White acted as a lookout, encouraged Owens to “go get her,” and drove Owens away after the attack.
- At a bail hearing the trial court found the qualifying offenses met the “facts are evident / presumption great” threshold and, by clear and convincing evidence, that White’s release posed a substantial likelihood of great bodily harm to others, and denied bail under Cal. Const., art. I, § 12(b).
- The Court of Appeal applied a deferential substantial‑evidence standard to both the qualifying‑offense finding and the future‑harm finding, and affirmed the no‑bail order.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide the applicable standards of review and whether the denial of bail was supported by the record; it affirmed the Court of Appeal.
Issues
| Issue | White’s Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standard for reviewing whether “facts are evident / presumption great” (qualifying offense) | Review de novo / scrutinize whether evidence truly supports guilt | Substantial‑evidence review: ask whether any reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Apply substantial‑evidence review: assess whether record could sustain a guilty verdict on a qualifying felony (affirmed) |
| 2. Standard for reviewing whether release would likely result in great bodily harm (clear & convincing proof) | Demand independent / de novo review because presumption of innocence warrants heightened scrutiny | Deferential review: ask whether any reasonable trier of fact could find by clear and convincing evidence the substantial likelihood of great harm | Review for substantial evidence of the factual finding; ask whether any reasonable factfinder could so find by clear and convincing evidence (affirmed) |
| 3. Standard for reviewing the ultimate denial of bail (trial court’s exercise of discretion) | N/A — focuses on error in factual/legal findings | Denial of bail is discretionary; review for abuse of discretion after deferential review of facts | Ultimate denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; here no abuse shown (affirmed) |
| 4. Whether record supported findings as applied to White | Evidence insufficient to show aiding-and-abetting or future dangerousness | Record (victim testimony, White’s statements, conduct) supports aiding/abetting and future‑harm finding | A reasonable factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and, by clear and convincing evidence, a substantial likelihood of future great bodily harm; detention not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Law, 10 Cal.3d 21 (1973) (recognizing California’s constitutional right to bail and the statutory exceptions)
- In re Weinberg, 177 Cal. 781 (1917) (evidentiary threshold for “facts evident” standard)
- In re Nordin, 143 Cal.App.3d 538 (1983) (upholding denial of bail where record supported findings)
- People v. Zaragoza, 1 Cal.5th 21 (2016) (review asks whether any reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Cromer, 24 Cal.4th 889 (2001) (distinguishing mixed questions warranting independent review)
- Cooley v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 228 (2002) (use of substantial‑evidence review for future‑danger findings in civil commitment context)
- Conservatorship of Wendland, 26 Cal.4th 519 (2001) (explaining clear and convincing evidence standard)
- U.S. v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2008) (federal precedent treating dangerousness findings as factual and reviewed deferentially)
- Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951) (recognizing bail’s role in safeguarding presumption of innocence)