People v. Cesar V.
192 Cal. App. 4th 989
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Cesar V. and Antonio V. challenged juvenile court findings that they violated Penal Code 415(1) by challenging to fight in public.
- The court also found true gang-related enhancements under Pen. Code 186.22(d).
- Welfare and Institutions Code 602 petitions were filed; offenses could be treated as felonies or misdemeanors.
- Witnesses at jurisdictional hearing were Sergeant Loran Baker and a gang expert; no other witnesses.
- Baker described Cesar and Antonio gesturing aggressively and inviting confrontation; Antonio and Cesar admitted gang associations.
- The juvenile court remanded for a declaration of whether each offense is a felony or a misdemeanor; this remand issue is appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 415(1) requires a specific intent | Cesar and Antonio: no specific intent required; statute targets dangerous challenge. | People: no specific intent element; conduct itself creates danger. | No specific intent required; substantial evidence supported 415(1) finding. |
| Sufficiency of 415(1) evidence | Cesar and Antonio: self-defense/standing ground negates a challenge. | People: gestures constituted a public challenge to fight. | Substantial evidence supports 415(1) violation. |
| Sufficiency of 186.22(d) gang allegations | Evidence insufficient to prove specific intent to promote gang crime. | Evidence shows purpose to signal gang affiliation would benefit the gang. | Substantial evidence supports gang allegations. |
| Remand for felony/misdemeanor status declaration | Court failed to declare whether offenses are felonies or misdemeanors. | Remand required to declare status per In re Manzy W.; conceded by AG. | Remand required; orders reversed for status declaration. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Manzy W., 14 Cal.4th 1199 (Cal. 1997) (remand required when felony/misdemeanor status not declared)
- Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (rejects Ninth Circuit view of specific intent in gang cases)
- Vazquez, 178 Cal.App.4th 347 (Cal. App. 2009) (California appellate on gang-related offenses)
- Hill, 142 Cal.App.4th 770 (Cal. App. 2006) (gang-related intent analysis)
- Romero, 140 Cal.App.4th 15 (Cal. App. 2006) (gang-enhancement standards)
- In re Jose R., 137 Cal.App.3d 269 (Cal. App. 1982) (juvenile evidence standard similar to adults)
- Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444 (Cal. 1969) (definition of specific vs general intent)
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (S. Ct. 1971) (fighting words First Amendment context)
- Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (S. Ct. 1974) (re: fighting words and First Amendment concerns)
- Ryan N., 92 Cal.App.4th 1359 (Cal. App. 2001) (substantial evidence review in criminal context)