People v. Curtis S., 215 Cal. App. 4th 758

The District Attorney filed a juvenile petition against Curtis S. alleging petty theft (count 1), assault (count 2), disturbing another person by loud noise (count 3), and using offensive words in public (count 4).
After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found counts 1–3 true, dismissed count 4, and declared Curtis a ward of the juvenile court on probation.
Curtis appeals, arguing insufficient evidence for count 3 and that his speech is protected by the First Amendment.
The appellate court issues are addressed though the claim is not properly preserved; the court independently reviews the evidence.
The evidence shows Curtis shouted obscenities, threatened a woman, and used profane language, disrupting a bystander’s encounter and creating a danger of imminent violence.
The court affirms the juvenile court’s judgment as to counts 1–3, with no challenge to counts 1–2 on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment claim forfeiture	Curtis argues pure law unaddressed by record.	Curtis contends the issue should be resolved on appeal.	Forfeited but merits reviewed.
Sufficiency of count 3 evidence	Speech was communicative, not a threat.	Speech created no clear and present danger.	Evidence supports clear and present danger finding.

In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (establishes appeal can raise First Amendment issues under some conditions)
In re Brown, 9 Cal.3d 612 (Cal. 1973) (distinguishes disruptive loud speech from communicative expression)
In re George T., 33 Cal.4th 620 (Cal. 2004) (independent record review of First Amendment implications)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (forfeiture rule in constitutional rights claims)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (U.S. 2003) (limits on speech when it facilitates disruption or violence)