People v. Kyle T.
9 Cal. App. 5th 707
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 28, 2015, police observed fresh blue graffiti (tags reading "Frost/Frosty" and "JRH") on two City of Los Angeles–owned buildings and on a nearby liquor store; Kyle was later stopped with blue spray paint and paint on his fingers and admitted, "I did it."
- The People filed a Welfare & Institutions Code § 602 petition charging: (1) felony vandalism (Pen. Code § 594(b)(1)) for damage to two City properties alleged to be $400 or more; (2) misdemeanor vandalism to Hai’s Liquor (stipulated under $400); and (3) misdemeanor possession of aerosol with intent to vandalize.
- At adjudication the People presented Officer Barragan as the sole damages witness; he testified that a one-page City "graffiti removal cost list" sets a $400 per-incident removal charge and, applying that flat rate, calculated $1,200 for three tags, but the list itself, invoices, photographs, or repair estimates were not admitted into evidence.
- Barragan conceded he did not prepare the list, could not explain how the $400 figure was derived, did not know actual repair costs, labor, materials, or whether repairs had been done; other officers testified only about observing tags, not damages or costs.
- The juvenile court sustained all counts, including the felony vandalism count, and later ordered placement with an aggregate maximum confinement; Kyle appealed arguing insufficient evidence that his acts caused $400 or more in damage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence suffices to prove $400+ damage for felony vandalism | City’s graffiti removal cost list (as testified to by Officer Barragan) establishes $400 per incident and supports felony finding | List is hearsay/unrelated to this incident; People offered no invoice, estimate, photos, or case-specific proof tying $400 to Kyle’s acts | Reversed: evidence insufficient; felony reduced to misdemeanor and disposition remanded |
| Whether an average per-incident cost list may substitute for case-specific proof of actual damage | Average-cost methods (graffiti removal lists) can inform restitution/costs | Felony adjudication requires proof of actual damage beyond reasonable doubt; average, non–case-specific rates are insufficient | Court doubts average-cost method’s use in adjudication and finds the list fails statutory criteria; cannot sustain felony on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re V.V., 51 Cal.4th 1020 (standard of review for insufficiency of evidence in juvenile delinquency cases)
- Luis M. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.4th 300 (actual-cost restitution for juvenile vandalism must be linked to the minor’s conduct)
- People v. Santori, 243 Cal.App.4th 122 (upholding restitution where estimate tied to photographs, size, manpower and materials)
- People v. Aguilar, 4 Cal.App.5th 857 (City used a removal-cost sheet but witness tied calculation to photograph-based, case-specific factors)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (proof beyond a reasonable doubt required when adjudication may deprive liberty)