People v. A.L. (In re A.L.)
250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- 16-year-old A.L. was involved in a violent fight with her sister; uniformed officers arrived and sought to detain A.L. as she approached her sister.
- An officer grabbed A.L.’s arm; she pulled away, screamed, dropped to the pavement, scratched and bit an officer, who then struck her and handcuffed her.
- Juvenile wardship petition alleged violations of Penal Code §§ 243(b) (battery on a peace officer), 69 (resisting by force), and 148(a)(1) (resisting an officer); one serious-bodily-injury battery count was dismissed.
- At the contested hearing the prosecutor argued A.L.’s subjective belief about the officers’ authority was irrelevant once the court found the officers were lawfully detaining her.
- The juvenile court sustained the three counts, declared A.L. a ward, and imposed probationary conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court applied correct mental-state standard for §243(b) (battery on officer) | A.L.: court ignored her state of mind when resisting | Prosecutor: §243(b) requires only "knows or reasonably should know," so objective standard suffices | Court: §243(b) uses "knows or reasonably should know" (criminal negligence/objective standard); court applied correct standard |
| Whether §69 (resisting by force) requires actual knowledge officer was performing duty | A.L.: court failed to consider her subjective belief; knowledge is an element | Prosecutor: defendant’s belief irrelevant if officers were lawfully detaining her | Court: §69 requires "knowingly" — actual subjective knowledge that officer was performing duty is an element |
| Whether §148(a)(1) (resisting, delaying, or obstructing) requires actual knowledge | A.L.: court misapplied law by not assessing her state of mind | Prosecutor: looks to Lopez instruction (knows or should know) | Court: "willfully" imports actual knowledge/subjective awareness; §148(a)(1) requires actual knowledge, not mere criminal negligence |
| Whether juvenile court’s remarks show unambiguous legal error requiring reversal | A.L.: court’s comment (you don’t get to resist) shows it ignored subjective knowledge element | Respondent: remarks are susceptible to alternate (nonerror) readings and court expressly found elements proved | Court: remarks ambiguous; record does not unambiguously show legal misunderstanding, so affirmation required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jennings, 34 Cal.4th 254 (explains default mens rea rules and limits on imposing strict liability)
- People v. Lopez, 188 Cal.App.3d 592 (discusses knowledge element for resisting officer and influenced CALCRIM wording)
- In re Jorge M., 23 Cal.4th 866 (construed mens rea for possession statute where text lacked explicit scienter)
- People v. Hendrix, 214 Cal.App.4th 216 (interprets "knowingly" in §69 as requiring actual knowledge)
- People v. Atkins, 31 Cal.App.5th 963 (analyzes mens rea for resisting/officer statutes and critiques Lopez)
- People v. Jenkins, 22 Cal.4th 900 (addresses whether defendant’s subjective belief about lawfulness of officer’s conduct is an element)
- In re Jerry R., 29 Cal.App.4th 1432 (explains when trial court comments reveal reversible legal misunderstanding)