*1 Dist., Aug. No. 43708. Second [Crim. Div. Seven. 1984.] A., In re JAVIER a Person Under the Juvenile Court Law. Coming PEOPLE, THE Plaintiff and Respondent, A.,
JAVIER Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel Defenders, under Jr., Quin Bell, State Public Denvir and Frank O. Knox, Monica Thomas Bleauvelt and the Court of appointment Appeal, Defenders, Public for Defendant and Appellant. State Deputy *6 General, Schwab and Beverly John K. Van de Howard J. Attorney Kamp, Falk, General, for Plaintiff and Attorneys Respondent. K. Deputy Opinion a First, did the seizure of
JOHNSON, J. This caseraises two issues. obtained evidence a nondefendant taint subsequent belonging photograph be consti- amay juvenile Secondly, with the assistance of photograph. his where proceeding denied a trial a right delinquency tutionally beyond freedom upon proof loss of wardship consequent depends felony. reasonable doubt that he committed specified We we find the motion to was reluctantly suppress prop- affirm. Although refused, “inviolate” we also conclude was denied his erly appellant I, Constitution. Only under article section 16 of the California because of the from reversing of Auto do we refrain compulsion Equity to trial for a new trial where Javier would remanding enjoy Instead we Court to reconsider 60- jury. can only urge trials decision which year-old constitutionality denying jury upheld in juvenile proceedings. Proceedings
I. Facts Below.
Certain facts are before 9 Shortly p.m. August undisputed. three members of the “40th Avenue” were near juvenile gang walking intersection of A Ford yellow Jefferson and 35th Street Los Angeles. Torino into view and halted a few feet from the three members. sped gang A rifle from Three shots One emerged the driver’s side of the car. out. rang members, Hermosillo, of the clutched his side and gang “Smiley” Alberto fell to the wounded. ground,
In is the who fired the shots. The investi- dispute identity person its about an hour after the in- gation produced first apparent breakthrough cident. a certain Detective Lane heard about a woman young residing address who was the in a recent shooting. of someone girlfriend suspected Lane and other went to the and learned the woman’s name officers address was Sylvia Franco. She was not there but at another residence. staying location, however, While at the first consent to search an obtained they found a album adjacent apartment. they belonging search During photo album, Franco and to Franco. found a Upon picture reviewing defendant, A., Javier “The Puppet.” This Allen Garcia. He was as- to Officer photograph given Randy CRASH, Officer unit which monitors activities. signed gang police *7 Garcia interviewed and one of the victim’s obtained a statement from signed Rocha identified the Mario Rocha. to this statement companions, According defendant, A., at him and Javier from this as the who shot snapshot person his friends from the yellow Torino. to the detective’s
Detective Lane interviewed Franco. Sylvia According said, been a few version of what Franco revealed had “jumped” was she weeks earlier some members of the 40th Street Franco then re- Gang. A., portedly boyfriend, said her told before the day shooting Javier her the he had been from but looking 40th Street” had not seen them “guys trial, (At yet. Franco she had claimed been her brother not referring Lane.) defendant her during conversation with Detective Not Franco, after with Detective Lane also long talking inter- Sylvia viewed Blanca Orozco. her from the He showed She album. photograph herself, identified Franco, and Javier to Detective According picture. version, Lane’s Orozco told him Franco said her had boyfriend “Puppet” shot had if “Smiley.” Orozco also said Franco warned her Purportedly either of them talked would be considered “rats” they among police trial, “A1 (At the both Orozco Capone Gang.” Franco and denied Fran- co had told Orozco Javier was who shot defendant the one “Smiley.” However, Orozco backed from this away denial somewhat cross- during examination.) 26, 1982,
On murder, August a week slightly over after the attempted Detective Lane arrested his a signed Javier. After arrest Javier written state- ment statements, and gave a recorded to the In these tape statement police. Javier admitted he and some of his friends had driven into the “40th Street” his neighborhood in father’s Ford were yellow They Torino. armed with .22 caliber Javier rifle had The obtained. his purpose avenge girl- friend who been had beaten in an by members of the up attempted rape “40th Street” Javier 40th from Street” gang. recognized “Smiley among group people walking down Jefferson to his According Boulevard. state- said, ment to the Javier shoot police, “Stop car so I can them.” He then out of the pointed rifle car window at fired “Smiley” and approximately four shots.1 filed a under Welfare People petition and Institutions Code section Javier, charging then with three age counts murder. attempted
(Pen. Code, 187, 664.) It was further used a (Pen. he firearm alleged §§ Code, 12022.5) and intentionally (Pen. inflicted great bodily injury. § Code, 12022.7.) Javier moved to under suppress § evidence Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1. This motion was Javier re- denied. also quested jury trial. This likewise was denied. request 1At trial participating shooting knowing “Smiley” Javier denied even or other gang. only members of the “40th Street” police He testified he made these statements to the because he was afraid and because the threatened he did not officers that if confess brothers, would arrest his too. *8 charged except true as After a trial the court found nonjury petition then declared Javier ward The court bodily great injury allegation. Youth for a Authority the court and to the California committed him maximum of 15 and 8 months. years Appellant’s Suppress
II.
Evidence Under Welfare
Motion to
Properly Denied.
Institutions
Code Section 700.1 Was
have been excluded
his statement to the
should
argues
police
Appellant
We conclude the
of an
We disagree.
fruit
search and seizure.
illegal
because
trial court did not err in
motion
suppress,
denying
appellant’s
album under
(1) there was no
and seizure of the
illegal
photograph
search
to the states Mapp
either the constitutional standard as made applicable
(1961)
84 A.L.R.2d
v. Ohio
fied woman, from boyfriend album the of the photo young Sylvia Franco; (9) Sylvia told Javier her and he detectives was had ex-boyfriend told her a he days before that had been for dudes from the couple looking 40th Street so he could Gang assaulting even with them for her sometime get (10) earlier and time officers learned was first Javier’s true and facts, correct name. Based on these the trial court ruled under Propo- sition 8 enacted in June 1982 had no assert a third standing to appellant Fourth party’s Amendment an unreasonable search and sei- rights against zure and the doctrine of inevitable was discovery applicable.
A. There Was No Unreasonable Search and Ms. Franco’s Pho- Seizure of to Album.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article
I, section 13 of the California Constitution both
guarantee
to be
people
houses,
secure in their
persons,
against
effects
papers
unreasonable searches and
To
seizures.
effectuate these fundamental consti
tutional guarantees, the
Court
held
Supreme
has
that “evidence seized dur
an unlawful
ing
search could
proof against
not constitute
the victim the
search. Weeksv. United States
[1914]
The continuation of California’s vicarious rule as well as exclusionary other independent state which oth- grounds evidence permit suppression erwise in federal court is under the constitutional permitted challenge mandate of 8. 8 resulted in the addition to the Cal- Proposition Proposition I, ifornia (d), Constitution of article section subdivision which provides that “relevant evidence shall not be excluded in criminal proceeding.” constitutional provision,3 Because of this uncertainty impact to the en- we shall both California law prior consider applicability *10 be which would actment of 8 and the constitutional standard Proposition California I, 28, (d) of the should article section subdivision applicable which regardless Constitution be We conclude that adjudged applicable. the denying appellant’s standard is the trial court did not err applied motion. under 8. Analysis Proposition
1. law to the enactment prior California As the challenge the vicarious rule would allow Javier exclusionary album, we reasonableness the search and seizure of Ms. Franco’s photo is whether now consider the results of such a The issue presented challenge. the by Ms. Franco’s was violated search legitimate expectation privacy of her album left in standard Mr. Macedo’s proper apartment. “ of review . whether is to ‘the trial court’s . . appeal findings uphold ... if are substantial evidence.’” express implied, supported “ ” And meet ‘the (People constitutional standard of reasonableness.’ 867, (1981) 591, 961].) Leyba 29 Cal.3d 629 P.2d 596-597 Cal.Rptr. [174 The record Macedo the Ms. Franco was discloses Mr. advised police find . . . for a week or two until could residing “upstairs temporarily [she] However, to live.” there no which delineated place testimony clearly was of control between Macedo or the relationship Sylvia degree and Mr. which Mr. Macedo had over the album.
The court’s analysis joint ownership situation which there is control of in which there is a to the instant case property analogous In United 164 L.Ed.2d bailment. States v. Matlock 415 U.S. [39 242, 988], 94 S.Ct. consent given by court considered whether defendant of a house to herself and the occupant search room occupied in evidence at sufficient to render the materials admissible “legally seized 246].) (Id. L.Ed.2d at p. criminal trial.” at respondent’s p. [39 The court held seeks to warrantless justify “when prosecution consent, that consent search it is not limited voluntary proof proof defendant, was search given by but show may permission over or other authority obtained from a third who common party possessed to be inspected.” sufficient to the or effects sought relationship premises (Id. of the consent 249-250].) at L.Ed.2d at The effectiveness p. pp. [39 by persons whether there is “mutual use of the property depends upon that the . . . and access or control for most generally having joint purposes (In Lance W. re Court. currently pending 3This issue is before California 23551).) (Crim. hg. granted (Cal.App.) Feb. others have assumed the one of might risk that their number permit common area to be (Id. searched.” L.Ed.2d at 250].) fn. 7 p. [39 In v. Cupp 693-694, 394 U.S. L.Ed.2d Frazier 1420], 89 S.Ct. the defendant of evidence found challenged admissibility a search of a duffel during left at his which he and bag cousin’s house his cousin used and which his consented In cousin searched. holding joint use of duffel his cousin the to consent to the bag gave authority search, the court was subtleties” unwilling engage “metaphysical raised by the defendant’s claim that his cousin had only permission use *11 one within the Because the had allowed compartment defendant his bag. cousin to the house, use it in bag, had left his the defendant assumed the risk cousin his would let someone else examine it.
Therefore, bailment, bailee, the whether who not own the does prop erty it, but has lawful can possession of consent to a search of the police which is effective property the bailor whether the against upon depends nature (Frazier of the bailment is such that bailor has risk. assumed v. Cupp, 731, 684, 693-694].) 394 U.S. 740 L.Ed.2d Crucial [22 factors the extent are bailor which the has surrendered control and the bench, length bailment. In case at is no there testimony toas the extent stipulation Macedo’s control over the album or how Mr. he held long had it. The album was on a dresser in plain Mr. sight Macedo’s one-room We The album was not locked. too do not apartment. wish to engage had “metaphysical only subtleties” that Macedo authority Rather, allow certain Ms. persons view Franco’s we photographs. believe the trial court have inferred from Mr. might reasonably Macedo’s action of showing officers Franco’s he had the Ms. picture requisite of control over degree it.4
The trial court’s
also
sustained under
au-
ruling may
“apparent
doctrine” set
thority
(1955)
forth in
v.
In the case, instant the doctrine’s diminished applicability arguably because Mr. Macedo stated the album Franco and initially Ms. belonged only showed the her officers at their It picture have been request. might inferred the police were on notice from Mr. Macedo’s initial he remarks had no apparent However, to show authority the album to them. the trial court also could infer reasonably Mr. Macedo’s exercise control over the album in response the police officers’ remarks him from estopped denying he had control over it and created an apparent authority which the upon could police reasonably rely. conclude,
We
therefore, that there was sufficient evidence before the trial
*12
court from which it could
infer
reasonably
the search and seizure of Ms.
Franco’s photo album was reasonable and we decline to disturb its ruling.
2. Analysis under the constitutional standard
8
applicable
Proposition
if
abrogates
vicarious exclusionary rule.
California’s
The Supreme Court has consistently
the mandate of the
interpreted
“
framers to mean
‘Fourth
which,
Amendment
are
rights
personal rights
like some other constitutional
not be
rights, may
asserted.’”
vicariously
(Rakas
Illinois,
v.
128,
supra,
387, 394];
439 U.S.
133-134
L.Ed.2d
[58
see Brown v.
(1973)
United States
223,
208,
411 U.S.
230
L.Ed.2d
[36
214-215, 93
1565];
S.Ct.
(1968)
377,
Simmons v. United States
390 U.S.
389
1247, 1251,
L.Ed.2d
States,
967];
[19
88 S.Ct.
Sun v. United
Wong
supra,
471,
371 U.S.
441,
492
458];
L.Ed.2d
cf. Silverman v. United
[9
(1961)
States
505,
365
734,
U.S.
738-739,
679,
511
L.Ed.2d
81 S.Ct.
[5
97
1277];
A.L.R.2d
298,
Gouled v. United
States
255 U.S.
304 [65
647, 650,
L.Ed.
Applying case, criteria to the instant we note first the status between relationship Javier and Sylvia Franco is unclear. She is either his girlfriend Further, ex-girlfriend. there is no indication of rela between tionship Macedo, Javier and Mr. of the occupant apartment which Ms. Franco’s album was found. no evidence was forth Secondly, put Javier had any with arrangement either Franco or Macedo to prevent per- sons from Mr. Macedo’s entering or from apartment viewing photo- Thus the graphs. album which Javier claims a interest was privacy which it apartment can be inferred he neither had access nor ability Moreover, exclude others from. the album itself was to be the stipulated property Ms. Franco not the defendant.
The defendant had no reasonable in the expectation privacy premises searched, Mr. Macedo’s He likewise had no apartment. reasonable expec- tation of seized, in the privacy personal Ms. Franco’s album. Ac- property if the cordingly federal rule the defendant is without applies, standing challenge admission of any evidence derived from this search seizure.
B. Javier’s Statements Police Are Under Admissible the Doctrine Inevitable Discovery. An alternative ground the admissibility of Javier’s statements to the is the police doctrine of inevitable In discovery. whether determining evidence is the inadmissible, “fruit of the tree” and therefore poisonous “ ‘ correct “whether, inquiry establishment of the ille granting primary gality, evidence to which instant is made has been come at objection of that exploitation or instead means illegality sufficiently distinguishable ’ ” to be purged (Krauss taint.” primary Superior Cal.3d 1023]; 487 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [96 Sun v. United Wong States, U.S. 455], L.Ed.2d quoting Maguire, *13 Evidence of Guilt (1959) 221.) p.
Assuming seized, arguendo album was photograph illegally there are three recognized methods which evidence the “fruit that is of the poisonous tree” may (1) be admissible if its there despite illegal origins: was an independent evidence, (2) source for the if it would have been avail able due to inevitable (3) if discovery, the connection between the source and the evidence (See LaFave, has been attenuated. 3 Search sufficiently and Seizure (1978) 11.4, 612-680.) The inevitable rule pp. discovery § is ‘ ’ “a variation upon source” ‘but it “independent differs that theory, is not whether question did in fact certain evidence police acquire by reliance an upon untainted but source instead whether evidence found because of a Fourth Amendment violation would have been dis inevitably covered lawfully.’ (1980) Saam (People v. 106 Cal.App.3d [Citation.]” “ 789, 797 256].) The Cal.Rptr. rationale of the doctrine is ‘to [165 prevent unjustly crimináis granting immunity (People from v. Su prosecution.’” perior (Tunch) (1978) 795].) Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [145 The meet their People may burden of “that the infer- by establishing proof anyway by police mation obtained would have been discovered illegally the normal during investigation. course of a conducted lawfully [Citations.]” (Pe (1979) ople Farley Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d [153 — — 2501].) 695]; 104 S.Ct. Nix v. Williams L.Ed.2d U.S. We find and seizure in the no of the search exploitation alleged illegal album, instant the officers case. Prior to the discovery photograph had “received address was information that a woman at a young specified then associate of the of a recent officers shooting.” person suspected to the determined that the address and at that location “proceeded specified It may woman was with a friend or relative young staying by marriage.” be inferred the closely had a certain in mind who was asso- police person ciated with the and had obtained sufficient information to locate this suspect Therefore, individual of whether the album. prior discovering regardless album, the officers been found her in an Franco would have Ms. picture investigated interviewed. next that Ms. Franco was a “friend” of the
Appellant argues because it is not suspect, inevitable she would have made a statement implicating him in a crime. “Sometimes the as to whether judgment discovery evidence challenged was inevitable a determination not of what law requires results, enforcement in- agents would otherwise have done with what but stead what some other would have done. This is the case person typically when the admitted is whether a crime victim’s be question testimony may where that victim was located reliance evidence. upon illegally procured Where the be fairly circumstances of case are such that it said may the victim could be into to come forward ‘without expected being prodded so as doing might in the case of a recalcitrant conceivably necessary crime,’ witness who is anot victim of the admitted testimony properly on an ‘inevitable to be unlikely justified Such a result is discovery’ theory. ‘where (3 LaFave, witness is a friend of the accused.’ [Citation.]” 11.4, Amendment, Search and Seizure A Treatise on the Fourth § case, however, In the instant Franco need not have voluntarily Ms. *14 forward, addition, come In there because were aware of her police identity. was no indication she to the Fur would have been uncooperative police. thermore, the made identification any does not state Ms. Franco stipulation of Javier in from the or that the influenced her statements photograph photo any Franco said that Javier A. had told way.5 parties Ms. stipulated extrajudicial 5We conclude that whether identification because issue of Mario Rocha’s court, properly of Javier have been it is not before suppressed should was not before the trial (Wilder Superior and we decline Court appellant’s argument. us to reach the merits of v. (1979) 494].) Cal.App.3d 92 Cal.Rptr. 94 [154 928
aher days before that he couple had been for dudes from 40th looking Street so he could Gang even with for her get assaulting them sometime earlier and that this first time that the had learned the mi officers nor’s true and correct name. Javier’s name and association to the crime therefore were not from the use of the gleaned they Instead photograph. were derived from an interview with a who would have been found witness in the normal course of the not investigation necessary It is that anyway. show that People police would have the tainted certainly discovered evidence, rather, it is a only necessary show reasonably strong probabil would ity (Tunch), supra, have. v. Court (People Superior 665, 681.) Cal.App.3d
III. Minors Charged Felony With Offenses in Juvenile Court Are by Jury Equity Entitled to Trial But Auto Not Permit This Does Judgment Against to Reverse Javier. The California juvenile’s claim to a need not on right jury depend trial due process grounds the United rejected by States Court.6 in Instead this state it rest can on a of the Cal- squarely separate provision Constitution, ifornia a of the Declaration of which part Rights, guarantees I, trial all by jury (Cal. Const., 16.)7 Californians. art. § One does not have to be an adult to Minors enjoy this have access right. to trial same as in jury adult If any nearly every legal proceeding. accident, instance, injured automobile a child’s to recover right will be decided an action where is available. if jury Similarly, trial a court, juvenile declared “unfit” and finds has the himself criminal he same a as opportunity demand adult defendant. hand,
theOn
other
in certain
and most
types
proceedings—dissolutions
actions, for
equitable
nor adults are entitled to
example—neither juveniles
trial by
If
jury.
cases were deemed to be criminal
delinquency
Pennsylvania 6McKeiver 1976],
This raises issues First, of the minor’s be declared on the basis stitution: amay wardship this a type proceeding of a a trial or is felony by jury commission without trial could be assuming jury be afforded? jury Secondly, where must action, ac- California juvenile delinquency denied a true have wardship accused juvenile where tions into criminal metamorphized proceedings We conclude a ju- for a trial? clearly jury must given opportunity felo- alleged a ward the court venile cannot be declared delinquent in that conduct he found to have engaged nious conduct unless and until is trial. Alternatively, at a where he hearing enjoys we further for our and sufficient constitutional independent ground opinion, “ criminal pros- conclude indeed have become actions delinquency with felonious acts ecutions” thus entitling juvenile delinquents charged whether a trial we consider by jury. With to both these respect grounds, California Su- 60-year-old stare decisis nonetheless we follow a requires not have a right did decision which held preme alleged delinquents trial in proceedings. Pro- Jury Delinquency Trial by A. Juveniles Are Entitled to California Wards Be Declared Could Not Because in 1850 Juveniles ceedings England Trial Without a Felonies the Court on the Their Commission Basis of by Jury. the California Constitu- We with the begin uncompromising language (Art. all.” be secured to “Trial and shall tion: is an inviolate Constitution, added.) I, italics I, art. 7 of the formerly original § § of the guarantee part These words admit of no The absolute exceptions. in California to everyone appearing Declaration of and thus available Rights or any law this state he violates age years when 8“Any person who is under the defining crime other any city county of this state the United States or ordinance of than an ordinance jurisdiction solely age, is within establishing curfew based (Welf. & Inst. court, of the court.” may person to be a ward adjudge which such Code, added.) italics § *16 930
courts. It is the individual’s personal to be exercised—or waived— right solely by that person. right to jury trial extends to all 1. cases where categories of in
right existed
England as
1850.
of
One hundred and one
after enactment of the
the Cali-
years
Constitution
fornia
Court
Supreme
pulled together the strands of several
lines of author-
which had
ity
to define
trial
sought
various facets
the jury
guarantee.9
authoritative,
The result
is the most
statement
defining
comprehensive
categories of cases where litigants are entitled to trial
to be found
by jury
in California
In
People
v. One 1941 Chevrolet
law.
the leading
case of
Coupe
(1951)
832],
People
Coupe, supra,
v.
283 not
only
37 Cal.2d
established the
in
English common law as it stood
1850 defines
right
9Among
earlier Supreme
jury
with
dealing
cases
various
trial
facets
guarantee
(1853)
right
are Smith v. Rowe
4
[jury
types
Cal. 6
trial
not attach in
does
law,
cases where unavailable at the
especially equity]; Koppikus
common
v. The State
Capitol
(1860)
Commissioners
[jury
applies
A third firm v. One Chevrolet likewise holding People Coupe 1941 affects our excursion into The Court made English legal history. it clear in One 1941 Chevrolet not relabel Coupe Legislature may cases which were heard at the common law in 1850 as cases now to be England heard in or in a equity special proceedings thereby deprive litigants “ right jury trial. ‘The to a be trial cannot avoided right by jury by merely an action a If calling or nature. that could special proceeding equitable done, be new Legislature, by new remedies and providing judgments and decrees in trials, form could all cases with equitable, dispense and thus entirely defeat the of the Constitution. The provision Legislature cannot convert a into an legal right one so as equitable infringe upon of trial The of the does not jury. permit Constitution provision Legislature confer on the courts the power trying to the according course chancery any question which has been triable always according ” to the course the common law aby jury. (People v. [Fns. omitted.]’ One 283, 299, 1941 added.) Chevrolet 37 Coupe, supra, Cal.2d italics
These three
(See,
have been
decisions.
principles
amplified
subsequent
e.g., Dorsey
(1952)
604];
v. Barba
2. As an minor not be declared a ward English could court—or be sent to a the basis his commis- school or prison—on reform sion felony by jury. unless he had been afforded value resisted English vigorously on trial placed high by jury to erode its Indeed in Blackstone attempts eulogized coverage.
as the institution which from the failed separated English government been, I democracies of the ever and trust ever by jury has past. “[T]rial be, will if looked as the law. And it has so upon great glory English over others in civil how much must that advantage regulating property, advantage when it is to criminal cases! . . . heightened, applied [I]t for, the most enjoy, transcendent which can wish privilege any subject that he cannot be affected either his his or his liberty, property, person, but unanimous A that I consent of twelve of his ... neighbors. [right] *18 has, Providence, venture to may affirm under secured the liberties of just nation for a French succession of And therefore a celebrated long ages. writer, concludes, Rome, who that because and have lost Carthage Sparta, liberties, their therefore in time should have those must England perish, Rome, recollected that and at the time when their liberties Sparta, Carthage, lost, were were to the trial strangers by jury. is, therefore, whole,
“It a which man owes to his upon duty every friends, himself, his country, his and ... to with the most guard posterity jealous and meth- circumspection against arbitrary introduction of new trial, which, ods of under in time a variety plausible pretences, may (3 undermine imperceptibly liberty.” this best preservative English Blackstone, 379, 381.) Commentaries on the Laws England pp.
Given the honored trial place jury occupied among English it would legal philosophers makers the decades before policy court, were we to find surprise law chan- English authorizing any including cery, to take a criminal offenses away minor’s freedom because of alleged without a it a deal jury trial. And indeed we find no evidence did and great it did not.
Despite parens between the patriae relationship English government citizens, and its minor those same minors an enjoyed unequivocal right Blackstone, instance, jury trial when accused of crime the law courts. reminds us child could be convicted if found not English only only have committed the criminal act but to be a “court guile” by “capable (4 Blackstone, and jury.” of England, supra, Commentaries on Law added; Platt, (2d 1977).) italics Child ed. see also Savers The California be criminal law not to a delinquency purports but declare proceeding rather a form of an action to equitable proceeding, a minor a “ward of the court” parens patriae jurisdic- pursuant equity’s tion. Ordinarily the trial did not attach in under equity English common law. But the whether this remains question particular specie a minor had a and on that basis wardship—finding committed crime making him ward a to the course of chancery” court—was tried “according in 1850 Or the course of England. instead “triable according common law a chancery none of the cases jury.” Significantly, English relied upon American decisions to denial of trials in uphold a did proceedings10 involved offender. Nor these English cases claim parens patriae courts of to decide without a empowered equity that a juvenile had a him committed crime then declare a ward of the court. Instead these cases were civil English ordinary guardianship cases. Nor custody does our own research or of the parties11 point any pre-1850 English case courts of to determine allowing English equity child had committed an offense and on that basis declare him a ward of the As see, court. we shall soon in 1850 decision whether minor England had committed a crime first to be had made through by jury law courts. Only then could the courts determine whether he should equity amade ward of the court.
Indeed there is much which happened the decades to preceding support conclusion law English granted juveniles right a to trial before the state could restrict their for than three liberty any longer months because of Moreover, criminal acts were to committed. have alleged law English would not allow this yield generous or aspirations promises of beneficial for treatment offenders. out As turns those decades witnessed and proposals discussions addressed this specifically very question.12 1850,
a. As English common law had specifically rejected attempts of deprive juvenile their jury trial in return the pur- offenders of for courts, ported separate juvenile “Fatherly Treatment” and “Re- benefits of ” Schools. form
In 1815 the Select on Committee the State of the Police the Metropolis heard Hobler, from testimony Francis a who a magistrate, proposed sepa- rate court for offenders under those who only least committed acts of thievery. As proposed, this court would have most of the attributes had a present day juvenile court rather than “I by jury. including judge
10See cases page post. discussed at specifically requested 11We parties any pre-1850 English supporting to search for cases (See proposition. p. post.) this apologize 12We length English for the and common law detail the discussion devel However, opments which quoted readily follows. most of the sources are not available. Thus, other and lawyers position courts would not be in their own libraries for to consult Moreover, elaboration if merely opinion. documents were cited in this it is difficult to convey the full happening England during flavor of this trial issue what acts, century quotations mid-19th without and proposals, rather extensive from debates.
think if the magistrates were with entrusted the sort of authority parental them a little and whip them bread and water and if the child had keep upon parents ... to send him back to them it would prove highly advantageous; and I can see that the magistrate and being gentleman years experience could not be to be supposed of this sort for capable abusing authority ” as men and as parents they must feel for the situation such characters. of the Select (Report Committee on the State of the Police of the Metropolis, Parsloe, quoted Juvenile Justice Britain and the United States In 1827 another Wilmot, Sir John magistrate, E. circulated Eardley letters his fellow among magistrates a similar court with an urging separate equally generous motive. “The remedy therefore that I would is . . . propose immediate and summary cognizance offenses committed youthful depredator; to be heard before an intermediate tribunal where offences petty bemay instantly proceeded against without the of- punished, sending fender to undergo stigma contamination of public prison, trial, publicity and all those evils which from im- infallibly result early I prisonment. ... would empower variety of punish [this court] the young culprit by him in an whipping, confining asylum set apart purpose, him discharging without at all. . . . punishment youthful will . . . find as the delinquent already “[T]he appointed legal guardians his infancy, those who by judicious restraint well-timed *20 instruction will of supply place his own relatives. It will be an ‘act for appointing guardians friendless’, for the deserted and rather than addition Code; to our Criminal and instead of a law of will be being punishment, (Sir of dispenser Wilmot, blessings.” John E. A Letter to the Eardley Magistrates Parsloe, in England, in Juvenile Justice Britain p. quoted States, and the United 112-113.) supra, pp.
In 1836 a Royal Commission was “to consider whether it was appointed advisable ‘to make any distinction in the mode of trial between adult and offenders, not, and if whether class of offenders can be made any subject to a more summary than trial The Commission proceeding by jury.’ advisable, that a reported distinction in the mode trial would not be except by increasing summary jurisdiction Magistrates.” (Rep. Committee on Departmental the Treatment of Offenders Young added.) italics p. Nonetheless, this and similar resulted in a agitation in legislative 1840. In that Sir John proposal same E. year Eardley Wilmot who had circulated the 1827 to introduce a bill proposal managed to create a separate for children under the of 16 who were age charged with (A minor committing Bill to Authorize the Convic- Summary offenses. tion of Misdemeanor, Juvenile in Offenders Certain Cases of and Larceny and Provide to Places for of the Peace. British Ses- Holding Petty Sessions II, (5 Victoria) sional Feb. Papers—House Commons 1840—3 687.)13 would Trials have been before The of- jury. a without judge fenders turn would been have Instead of granted years boon. offenses, an adult would prison suffer for the the minors would be same dealt with were to them . . magistrates who treat as would a: “. enjoined father over his son—a which enable them to bring moral could authority, juvenile offenders under a course of moral and which training discipline should have the effect of in- them to the and reclaiming honesty paths bill, bill was a dustry. merciful to for those object being its provide who were without natural and and parents national guardians, parents guard- ians, in order to save them from to to be contaminated sent and being gaols (52 Debates, 23, 1840) ruined.” (Feb. Series 3 7—Mar. Parliamentary 652-653.) pp. bill
This actually passed the House of But it did not Commons. become law. It was defeated House of Lords which found it “unconstitution- al.” one As historian “The bill denied to children the reports: ‘[Tjhere offences, trial. General Johnson said: end would be no to juvenile juvenile gaols, that, juvenile courts and all without benefit the pris- 13“Whereas it by experience great has been found have from evils arisen the com Misdemeanors, mitment Trial age, Larceny of Offenders of tender accused of and where early vice, imprisonment such has and attempt tended harden them in to render reforming them more difficult unavailing: expedient provide and And it is whereas [f] summary Offenders, proceeding against mode of adjudicating and such instead that now force; Enacted, Be It any person brought Therefore [f] . . . That when shall be before or Two more upon Larceny, Justices of the Peace charge . . . it shall made appear age person them their satisfaction that the of such does not exceed age Years, reputed age or charge; of Fourteen it shall be lawful for Justices to hear such such charge, upon case shall be satisfied of the legal truth such sufficient evidence, upon accused, Offender, confession of the and to party convict such commit *21 Correction, him or her to the jurisdiction, House of be within their control and there to imprisoned any Months, for exceeding not term Six calendar or without hard labour at with Justices; the altogether discretion said or it shall be lawful for such Justices either discharge such good Offender her punishment, without or to take sureties for his or behav also, any Months, iour for term not exceeding Six . Provided That no conviction . . shall lands, subject chattels, party any goods, convicted to forfeiture or tenements hereditaments, provided, or And party incompetent shall make the an witness: convicted nothing That herein prevent any contained shall hinder or from commit or Justice Justices Sessions, ting Quarter any Assizes, such Offenders for or or General trial at General Peace, they ought Sessions of if so any ... think such Offender to be committed.” shall (“A Summary Bill to authorize in certain Conviction Juvenile Offenders cases Misdemeanor, Peace, Larceny Petty of the provide holding and to Places for Sessions II, by Papers—House as amended of Commons 1840 Committee.” British Sessional (5 February 1840).) nearly pp. original The in the text is identical 699-700 version cited by except age juveniles by changes suggested for the covered and certain minor bill the Committee.
oners of trial by jury. of the bill principle was unconstitutional because it conferred a two power upon to become and exe- magistrates judge, (Parsloe, cutioner at once.’” supra,
In 1847 a more limited olfender bill not was introduced but only actually passed both houses of Parliament. Titled “An Act for the More Trial and Speedy Punishment of Juvenile Offenders” 10 and 11 Vic- toria it However, became law on 1847.14 July for several reasons this act no supplies for support the denial of trial to California juveniles with charged felonies.
First, it authorized summary trials for what the bill’s nonjury only sup- porters characterized as “trivial crimes.”15 These were defined as “Simple or Larceny, punishable as . . . .” This Simple Larceny category represent- ed a far narrower range offenses than contemplated by rejected Sir J. proposal. Pakington, chief of the sponsor 1847 legislation, empha- sized the 1840 juvenile offender bill had been “a bill—it no stronger placed limit whatever as to stolen, the amount of the dealt with property merely offences of reluctantly, persons most conversant under liamentary Hearing *22 for some months before his trial exceeding such Certificate of Dismissal as for his future such the same Cause.” of, upon Justices shall be not that the and whose shall the Person being may ... sellor, or Procurer in the committed or pedient to allow of such every Offenders, is now 1 5Expressing 14“‘Whereas, inflict herein-after summarily been be committed to the Common Gaol or House of Correction within the be Justices, not summarily disposed crimes involved: “A Person who Charge any his own Confession or upon passed. Authority Three Calendar Law deemed or Debates, such a Law any Age charged and to avoid the Evils of to consent Punishment, adjudicating thereupon, having good there to be imprisoned, with mentioned, his such Case shall is from Opinion at the Period of provided, trifling ... in order in general approval opinion, shall, shall, Behaviour, vol. of this attempted to to a [1] with the Offenders of the XCIII, character; subsequently upon being And be it exceed the and to declared to be Commission of of under the Provisions of this jury Act, Months, person Circumstance a fit before the Person certain Cases to ensure the more shall dismiss the deem the Offence not Justices before whom he or she shall be aforesaid, being dispensed or without such Third the Commission or shall subject, give .... being proceeded against commit, and he who had of this . . . enacted, their called Age Proof, be released from all further or other deal with the Series, further Power to It Simple Larceny, that a Provided (Lord of Fourteen appeared bill, long Imprisonment previously any or with upon before stolen or without hard June passing That charged every jury ought Subject Offence which now is or hereafter shall or Party charged, Lord Denman Denman) with in such Sureties, to answer the 2-July every any attempted having always to be Case to be the almost universal shall have been convicted Person who fagot of this Years, shall, shall have made his or her for Prosecution Two or more Justices of the Peace bail them’ proved, not to be in all or was therefore 6, 1847, Person Act, . . . Provided been an that if punishable a more cases, Act, emphasized Commission of such Offense Labour, such Justices Charge, object respects egg might finding Surety speedy who or that it is not be required at Be such Justices upon Aider, Abettor, ...” summary p. charged it enacted . . . That shall have obtained as prepared, for 700.) brought as if also, Conviction there Trial of Juvenile the minor nature Indictment, Simple (Hansard’s Proceedings to decide Jurisdiction any Trial, shall, this Act had Manner than with that if such to the Case imprisoned or Sureties opinion Term not or expedient upon Defense, Larceny, however it is ex instead appear having Coun upon ifor Par the all the age that cases of where accused was parties—so larceny, under prescribed dealt before a magis- with age, might summarily Commons, Times, trate.” The (Parliamentary Intelligence—House 29, 1847, Thursday, 3.) at April p.
Secondly, the maximum could three liberty loss the court was impose months. The original bill would have allowed sentence magistrates guilty However, to six juveniles months the Select Commit- imprisonment. tee of the House of Lords heard “the Amount Punishment is testimony for excessive a Magistrate (British to have the Power of . . .” inflicting . 444.) Parliamentary Papers (1970) vol. The rec- p. committee’s ommendation to reduce the maximum to three liberty loss months (Hansard’s accepted Debates, House of su- Parliamentary Commons XCIII, pra, 3.) vol. p.
Finally, 1847 act met the which had objection evidently doomed denial of the proposal—the trial. The act specifically this protected right by the accused giving option demanding through course, he, of regular process where enjoyed shall, trial.16 the Person charged called to answer upon being upon “[I]f Charge, object the Case of under the Pro- being summarily disposed Act, shall, visions of this such Justices summarily adjudicating instead of deal with thereupon, the Case in all as if this Act had not been respects (An passed.” Act for the More Trial and Punishment Juvenile Speedy Offenders, supra, 10 and 11 639.) Victoria at p.
In contrast to England’s limited 1847 Juvenile Offender Act present California of- delinquency process sanctions trials nonjury felonies, fense. This includes even those as serious murder and attempted murder. The California law authorizes loss of which amount liberty may to five or ten more, years, or is a not where offense indeed felony Furthermore, misdemeanor. it does not allow minor to elect trial by jury in either the juvenile or adult court he adju- should prefer summary dication.
In Parliament bill again considered a creating justice system akin to the (A present system. American Bill The Correction Reformation of Juvenile Offenders and the Prevention of Juvenile Offences. 16Apparently option legislation. inclusion of passage was essential to of the 1847 As reading, one member during although observed debate : “But he vote for the second should support convey he could not stages, bill in its future enactments a unless should its option and specific direct if party appeal to the accused of an to a he desired it.” (Statement Bankes, Commons, Times, Parliamentary Intelligence—House of Mr. *23 1850) (6 III Mar.
British Sessional of Commons Papers—House of 465.)17 range bill with broader charged This to applied juveniles him or her with, Land, cultural Labour. . . . pations and due One or the said Institution the Industrial for their hard and continuous or Friend Laws, religious be Industrial Schools provided, propose Police summary any Child be a convenient Police other Person or Justices of in an Industrial General to the tion and Reformation of Juvenile to sentence him or One of intend the Erection and Time to Time be determined whom such to be once or General a Committee of Justices to Majority mitted Children and Offence Law to Juvenile Offenders Punishment suitable to their of Offence under the of are not well of vent the 17“Whereas Simple Common Juvenile Offenders: . . Be it any Age such deemed it shall said not Effect or Magistrate, upon the Second Conviction of Peace more other her suitable to Separation That be or Police at Sessions now Adoption by Offence, of the Justices with Conviction, School, exceeding Larceny, School, privately up Female, the next charged Sessions Charge is Majesty’s such Child able Gaols sentence that there adapted, be lawful for the after or Justices moral of Act, as punishable to such Parent or Friend. any it is School, declared any the said of the either Magistrate, upon if the Conduct of and if for the Station, her to Offence which now is or hereafter shall be Vagrant and it from Quarter or before One or Discipline; just whipped, Acres, County [t] shall be lawfiil for the Justice or Justices or him her to them lawless having made, Expiration reprimand either to diminish the Number of Offences Gaols .... punishable be Houses of young Visiting working in addition Peace present any dangerous Companions and Completion That if the Peace or Police it shall made separate to be Justice . established for the said or separate procure proper Lock-up, Peace, of Laws, or General Sessions of the Peace for the any for the expedient upon summary been upon by Majority Labour, Persons, under Simple Larceny, for said and for the more effectual any England Justices at therefore Term not Classes her or Correction, Confinement for willing the due Conviction previously then the said Justices or with the said Offenders; the Discussion of such Resolution more Confinement of be [1] Purpose Visiting Twelve Months Child under Justices such Simple of the and order her to or and criminal or detained, for their to and the like Offences committed Conviction, That due Superintendence . . . Prison, are or Justices of the Peace or in this distinguish to afford Child has been enacted any substitution County. appear Conviction necessary Wales Larceny, Justices hereby Site [H] or Magistrate convicted and the less and if such Resolution shall shall Offence which now is training and Instruction or Police for That after the and to Sixteen Country for County .... than him or her to the said punishable any any Habits of Life: Age may, Children it shall be Purposes of the such Child authorized to . . . [H] be lawful for such Justice from Admission of between Offences present the said Industrial be of such Child or Buildings, for such Punishment as Term not Child under Sixteen of such Magistrate One and be discharge Years of That if shall forthwith nominate with discharged. with of such . . . an and satisfactory to the any Accomplishment Justices in useful forthwith Circumstances, practising Industrial Year more That Provision shall Treatment for Visiting of Correction proper any any as give in the such Expiration of Two Years lawful for the said Justice Child, may formerly have any Child Simple exceeding Ten Weeks in Constable, Age at Law deemed or declared or to reform Police Offence now And such Offence under purchase or rent sufficient shall Notice of his Intention present Offence, for Police such said Arts, Protection, Employment Purposes . . . discharged, and if such Colonies, and at the said next or Justices shall if School for such Children by whereas against the such Child, School, of Juvenile Larceny, appoint, hereafter County a Magistrate under Costs [t] Adults, Male, Trades, than Three Years. Magistrate be be carried any Child into Years of the and Police Visiting Justices either Second That any charged is hereinbefore and to or punishable on the Reformation, and to Sixteen Years as likely to in and be made Correction, the Correc by or with shall be Justices Laws any Quarter or Resolution Objects and Occu Characters Officer, associated Offenders, may from under this Discipline order Offence, for with applying Age Vagrant Quarter deliver appoint Parent Justice before before by the to super from agri com their most pre him any any any for or or or *24 of the summary charges minor crimes than the 1847 It sanctioned trial act. of “industrial schools re- without a It also called for the creation of jury. offenders to these second form.” courts commit proposal empowered in of ten weeks industrial schools for one to three in addition to or lieu years school in a be to an industrial regular Third offenders could sent prison. much as seven until reached in addition to as they twenty-one years age of in years prison. bill, Strickland uttered
Parliament did not this however. Sir G. pass of the most debate in the House Commons. perhaps objection telling during at the “He was to see the name of bill’s chief surprised proponent] [the back a Bill which of all by of trial two-thirds abolish proposed the cases of Had the and learned larceny that were tried hon. country. Gentleman read of the law of the who one any country, writers great of all maintained that trial by rights Englishmen? was one of the dearest he Had studied the of the law reformers of our own writings days—the of Sir Samuel or of a still writings Romilly, higher Lord Brougham, authority—the most had country learned and constitutional Minister ever the noble Lord at the who said that possessed, head of the Government by jury to trial in the gov- owed whatever share people they possessed ernment of the that to owed country; by mainly trial the Government the attachment of the to the laws—a which ought consideration people any Reform, Admission of Child into an have Industrial School of if such Child shall no whom, contained, Parent or Friend Visiting under the lastly Provision herein Justices Safety can with to such Child up, Visiting deliver him or her then it shall be lawful for the Justices provide of the said School may Child for such in the Manner that seem them Life, most suitable for by its Welfare in keeping either in the said him or her Industrial School Reform, by Child, Male, employing or Majesty’s such aif as a or a Sailor in Her Soldier Service, Works, or as a public by any Workman in or or apprenticing him to Artificer Trades- man, Country Dominions, either in this any part Majesty’s or in of Her until such Child shall Age Years, or, have attained Twenty-one Female, employing if such Child be a her as Apprentice Dominions, a Servant or Country any in this Majesty’s or in Part of Her such Manner, Child, direct, in the Case of a Male or Visiting Female as the shall and as Justices shall be with any Regulations by Majesty’s consistent General Subject laid down Her on Secretary of State for the Department. Home any That Child under Sixteen if Years ...[!] Age charged shall be before One or more Magistrate Justices of the Peace or Police with any Laws, Offence under Vagrant any or with or Offence which now is hereafter shall Larceny, Larceny, Law deemed or declared Simple Simple to be or or with punishable as any Conviction, punishable Offence now summary having previously been Twice convicted Offence, any such Magistrate it shall be lawful for the Justice or or Police before Justices made, Charge Offence, whom upon such the due such Third Conviction such Child for Years, to commit him her any bring or to Prison for exceeding Term not Seven in order to Operation him or Reign her within the passed of the Act Years of the First and Second Offenders,’ present Majesty, Her young intituled ‘An Act Establishing for a Prison for to sentence such Child to be until such Child detained in an Industrial School of Reform Period, Age Twenty-one any thereupon shall attain the such Child Years. For shorter may Visiting be in Justices of such disposed employed Manner of and Order of the Reform, Approbation Secretary Department, School of with the of the Home in such Benefit, may be public Manner as deemed such Child shall attain the desirable until Twenty-one Age of Years.” (3 jury.” away make how took cautious legislators 779-780.) Debates, 24, 1850) vol. pp. Parliamentary (Apr. Hansard’s one thanking the bill Another member kinder the supporters *25 Bill, notwithstanding he had in supporting “for moral shown courage at of house large.” part the decided expression opposition Debates, Headlam, Parliamentary (Statement of Mr. Hansard’s the chief However, spokes- the vote of could not even enlist the bill Act, Pakington, Sir John man for 1847 Juvenile Offender’s the successful had Act state, Offenders’ who it to as the Juvenile “thought right discussion, he no that was of the been referred to in course frequently it not Bill, give he could to now stood and that as measure party De- Parliamentary (Statement his J. Hansard’s Pakington, Sir support.” bill allowing the 1850 bate, 782.) The supra, at p. opposition prevailed for substantial to schools of reform” to be committed “industrial juveniles become law in trial did not jury of time without the benefit of periods relevant year—1850—Parlia- as of the Consequently, constitutionally year. schools of reform ment had the notion the benefits rejected expressly offenders.18 the like to jury denial of trial justified by jury trial entitled to As were alleged juvenile b. offenders declared wards the court. being before evidence is powerful
The fate of this legislation proposed as trial on minor’s right of the value law a supreme English placed same time at the It seems inconceivable year the critical 1850. a power, have Chancery possessed Court of could English legal history had com- otherwise, some youngster inherent or to decide without custody in the to be mitted a criminal and therefore was placed offense existed, Earley Sir John If that an institution “in his own interests.” power necessary it would not have found magistrates Wilmot and his fellow to act juries without operating to create a new court legislation propose would merely with crimes. charged They manner toward minors fatherly There- Chancery. to the Court of have referred offenders alleged chancery cases fore, for any English not one in vain searches surprising a jury. cases without to act in these actually claiming possess power (Youthful 1850 bill. substantially milder version 18In Parliament enacted However, in the Act, 1854).) any diminishment (Aug. & Offenders 18 Victoria years too late to came four juvenile’s right may have entailed English trial this act Moreover, it should by jury. juvenile’s affect California constitutional crimes, primarily in the nature only applied to rather minor highlighted even this act attempted appellant’s jury trial in felonies such petty away It did not theft. take charge. murder We first examined any all the cases cited in American pre-1850 English decision19 as the notion the inherent supporting parens patriae jurisdiction of English a declaration of based on the equity justified minor’s wardship commission of a without trial Our located five felony research jury. only such cases.20 None of these decisions courts had suggests English equity to shift power from the another individual or institution custody parents reason remotely the minor’s involvement in criminal resembling Indeed in activity. none court’s activated jurisdiction by any type of misbehavior on the juvenile. contrary, To the each case the part focus was on the worthiness—and the misconduct—of the usually parent potential guardian of the nonparent child. *26 (Countess 103,
In v. Eyre of) (1722) 2 Shaftsbury P. Wms. Eng. Rep. 659, the issue involved the mother’s conduct in her son’s mar- arranging without riage the consent of the deceased father’s duly appointed guardian. parte 1009, In ex Hopkins (1732) 24 Ch. D. his a father had allowed wealthy brother to raise his three daughters. When the brother died he willed sub- stantial to sums who girls remained in his house under the supervision of cousin. a Seeing to claim to their opportunity lay the father legacies to order petitioned chancery return of his three The court held daughters. the father was not entitled of his children under automatically custody these circumstances and it could make the only determination the basis decision, of a bill. Another cited v. Westbrooke Shelley Eng. Rptr. 17 Ch. Bk. denied the custody his children be- poet Shelley cause his irreligious effect, and immoral like beliefs and behavior. To the court Wellesley v. Wellesley, supra, N.S. Bligh Eng. Rep. 1078 awarded guardianship to the deceased mother’s sister because father’s misbehavior. He was living in and had written letters to adultery swear, women, his children encouraging them to chase and the like. When child, reacted Wellesley to this defeat it led to final his kidnaping decisions, case cited in the Wellesley American court v. The Duke (1828) 39 19 Ch. Bk. 538. The real issue here was Eng. Rptr. of Beaufort whether Wellesley as a member of Parliament subject was contempt.
The California present law does not base its decla- delinquency ration of on a wardship misbehaved or were finding parents unworthy. Instead the California statute on the predicates juvenile’s personal wardship
19See post. cases listed in footnote post-1850 20A opinions. case also was relied on in some the American The Queen Gyngall (1893) 2 only parens patriae 232 is of Q.B. interest because it discusses the historic power equity. though custody The court held a of her mother could be denied child even she living had not misbehaved. The had been persons reason—the with whom the child were guardians again deemed worthier and the child said she wanted to remain with them. Thus only typical a custody civil child case. the a doubt beyond
misbehavior—in this case reasonable proof law it existed English committed felonious act. Under specific on misbehavior based wardship court’s to declare equity jurisdiction However, enacted in 1840. of the minor was derived from a statute solely statute, that to be minor’s shortly,21 described preserved he whether indeed in that which determined proceeding phase ward becoming had committed the offense which warranted his courts. equity letter we sent a authority,
In order to broaden our search for relevant asked, inter alia “As over a oral which month parties prior argument a jury without of 1850 was court determine any English empowered him a ward of a minor had committed and on that basis declare a felony or similar insti- in the a reform school custody court him place facts and and discuss the tution? . . . Please be to cite to the court prepared held the Court of Chancery cases which holdings any English pre-1850 we At oral any argument other English possessed power?” been to find such cases. whether had able inquired People they been locate any had but had unable to searched People responded has been unsuccessful. decision of this nature. Our own research equally *27 patriae of equity’s parens This result is not the actual surprising given scope above. as reflected in the cases described jurisdiction English pre-1850 declare the to wardship Indeed because lacked specifically equity power 1840 to based a bill was introduced in on minor’s misbehavior personal to the level of confer such at least when the misbehavior rose authority which re- in 1840 session of Parliament felony. Enacted same during offenders, law was called this jected court for special nonjury “An Be Convicted May Act For The Care And Education For Infants Who Victoria, 527.)22 (3 It authorized Of & ch. Felony.” p. 942-944, post. 21See pages Twenty-one Years Age of shall every any being under the Case which Person 22“[I]n Majesty’s High of Chan for Her Court Felony,
hereafter be convicted of it shall be lawful willing charge to of may be take cery, upon any or who Application of Person Persons Education, Infant, if such Court shall and provide such and to for his or her Maintenance Infant, being Age of regard had to find that be of such due the same will for the Benefit Parents, Infant, Circumstances, Habits, testamentary or to Character of and and Infant, Guardian, Infant, Custody during his assign and of such natural of such to the Care Persons, thereof, Terms and Minority, any upon or such or her or Part to such Person Education, Maintenance, Conditions, and Regulations respecting to subject and such direct; infant, and proper prescribe think to Chancery Care such as the said Court of shall made, remain in upon any long so as the same shall Purpose being Order for that and Father, force, every testamen upon binding obligatory upon the same shall be Infant, be entitled use shall tary or and no Person or Persons natural Guardian such may with such any be inconsistent or exercise Power or over such Infant which Control any may at Time Chancery: always, the said Court the said Provided Order of rescind, alter, any vary Terms or or such Assignment, rescind or from Time to Time such some, Courts to do all Chancery things but not an American court is to do. empowered Under the Infant Felons of 1840 the Court could transfer Chancery Act of a child custody from his her father to Person or Persons who “any or infant, or her may take and to for his willing charge such provide Maintenance and find that the same will be Education if such Court shall infant, for the Benefit of such debate in the during . ...” As observed Commons, was, House of “the of this bill to transfer from hands object to the care of a children who been parents society, benevolent [had] Debates, (June convicted of (55 crime.” Series 3 23—Aug. Parliamentary 11, 1840), 1258.) The extent how the p. court also could to some regulate child was treated while society of the benevolent or other third custody and could any terminate this time. person arrangement guardianship Nowhere in the parliamentary debate over the Infant Felons Act was even hinted this statute held by codified the Court merely powers already Chancery bill, other court. The chief English spokesman Russell, Lord took pains stress that without legislation chancery jurisdiction lacked to shift from custody juvenile offenders their parents “It others. had been benevolent attempted many remove persons such children had committed from the influence of their [who par- crimes] ents, but it had been impossible (Par- law at stood.” present found liamentary Times, Intelligence—House Commons, 1, 1840, London Aug. at p. added.) italics Another member the House of Commons opposed the bill specifically because he to the “objected power being given Lord Chancellor, or any other authority, of the care of their deprive parents children without (Statement Estcourt, their own consent.” of Mr. 55 Par- Debates, liamentary added.) A italics third member pro- *28 tested a “this was new and one principle, of a and dangerous peculiar char- (Statement acter.” Times, 1, 1840, of Mr. Wakley, London at supra, Aug. 4, added.) p. italics Lord Somerset be the characterized this “to most ex- traordinary power that he had ever any known bill introduced conferred (London 1840, without notice . Times, . . .” at supra, italics Aug. p. added.)23 Conditions, fit; Regulations, also, or such may as to the provided said Court seem High the said Chancery fit, Court of may shall and may award such to Costs as it seem any against such Person aforesaid, or who Persons shall make Application such if such
Application founded; shall not appear to the said Court well and such Costs be payable shall any to Parent testamentary any or other natural oppose Guardian of such Child who shall enacted, Application. such every II. And be it it a That in Case shall be Part of the [1i] Terms and upon Custody Conditions which assigned, such Care and be that the Infant shall not, during shall beyond such Custody, Period of Care and the Seas or out sent Chancery.” Jurisdiction the said Court of bill 23This was introduced in the House of Commons notice” because it had “without originated (Statement in the House very high of Lords “where it had received sanction.” Russell, Times, 1, 1840, supra, Lord London Aug. p. ex- this “most however, Act conferred the Infant Felons
Significantly, had been after a only juvenile of Chancery on the Court traordinary power” had which he during courts an a trial in law convicted of offense after highlighted of the law was a trial. This right jury enjoyed provision into debate, “[Bjefore operation, come bill could during parliamentary conviction, the court a b& the civil the infant must rights forfeited De- (55 Parliamentary control.” extend that forfeiture to might parental em- bates, itself was not added.) The court italics equity or to an offense a minor accused of to assume over jurisdiction powered That the crime. whether the minor had committed decide without jury seen, in we have with the law courts. As remained jurisdiction exclusively when they to trial by jury except the law courts minors retained the right in the 1847 Juvenile defined were with the “trivial offenses” only charged Offender Act. of juvenile form early as of Parliament had refused to enact
Thus of their with felonies large juveniles charged court because denied part was limited minor Summary jurisdiction constitutional trial. right jury to further dispute And liberty. and a maximum three months loss crimes to make juvenile inherent any power notion courts equity possessed court, to enact statute found it necessary offenders wards Parliament made But in so it doing on of Chancery. to confer this the Court jurisdiction law courts in the conviction Chancery’s prior jurisdiction depend upon trial where the right preserved. course, 1850, of cannot history
What after legal happened English trial in of the scope control our determination directly can shed Nonetheless, day developments California. present subsequent time. It is instruc- trial as of an earlier status of light court, it did juvenile tive to observe created a finally separate when England Nor did this juvenile purport not this court on the side. place equity doctrine or the inherent pow- to derive its from the authority parens patriae located square- court was Chancery. ers the Courts of Instead Moreover, then the most even revealing, on the law ly side. perhaps offenders option Parliament deemed it English grant essential a nonjury that to in the courts should by jury regular prefer trial before the court.24 *29 jurisdiction of the separate English finally juvenile courts as a 24The Parliament created legislation in the introducing this magistrates’ the Children Act of While courts 1908. if century ago, such measure Lord “half a House of Commons the Advocate conceded introduced, being under British Constitution was had been it would have been said Parsloe, (1908 (Hansard’s Series) quoted in Parliamentary p. 4th mined.” Debates 133.) gave juvenile courts States,.supra, p. The act Justice in Juvenile Britain the United charged with juvenile ages except and 16 those
jurisdiction over all between offenders (Children (1908) 8 Act Edw. jointly with an adult. murder or who committed their offenses 67.) would be considered in the United States given ch. These courts also were what of the need of care because jurisdiction 14 who were in dependency over children under This act was the House of Lords had failed to passed years after fully create a jurisdiction for it violated special juvenile delinquents grounds the unwritten constitutional of a trial for all guarantee right jury English- to By men. 1908 Parliament right somewhat willing compromise denying by jury court itself. Even then the juvenile English legislative felt of- body England’s unwritten constitution juvenile required fenders retain the option to demand their trial in the rights jury regular courts. Nor was Parliament justify to alter the constitution willing enough courts juvenile as part Chancery jurisdiction. Instead as one English commentator observed “the 1908 act decided that juvenile justice should by courts dispensed and that these courts should be of the part general system criminal justice. . .. did not have They Chancery jurisdiction, which in Britain had court, been restricted always to the but were high they given statute for the welfare as well responsibility juveniles, as of the protection community.” (Parsloe, Juvenile Justice Britain and States, United 135.)
English commentators have seriously questioned accuracy American belief that English equity’s parens patriae jurisdiction supports denial of jury trial in this country’s juvenile over jurisdiction alleged In a delinquents. recent comparative and American study English juvenile court systems, a British scholar concludes:
“The early writers claimed that the juvenile [American] [American] courts acquired duties and responsibilities parens patriae part their equitable jurisdiction.[25] This derived from the jurisdiction English Court of Chancery, and for this reason we English history have to turn to explore of this claim. meaning This is discussed in this question . . . chapter because only claim such jurisdic [American courts] . tion. . .
“There were some to be problems resolved before the courts could claim the prerogative parens It is unclear whether the patriae. Act, (Children conditions in which living. 58.) were supra, § Under the terms of the Children magistrates presided Act over court and jury. sat without a There was right no to demand trial when court exercised its jurisdiction” “civil over dependency proceedings what would be called California. How- ever, this was not true delinquency proceedings. “When the exercising person court was jurisdiction, young its criminal either the child or the court could decide higher that the decided case should be transferred court and by judge jury. protected (Parsloe, Thus the act trial. ...” Juvenile States, Justice in Britain and supra, p. the United 25This also was the view adopted by many passing of the American courts on the consti tutionality 950-953, (See Juvenile Court Laws which pp. denied trial. infra.) *30 child concerned a because matter
Court of Chancery jurisdiction acquired . . . heir to a child was the property. who needed or because protection of the two Courts the jurisdiction There are other factors which suggest kind any concerned with different. courts were never very Chancery who behaviour, by invoked only people and their was jurisdiction criminal child to the relationship or legal had or to have a direct familial purported re- deal with children If had to Chancery power the Court question. agents, to well-wishers or law-enforcement by ferred it disinterested that likely early was not a it used. On the whole seems power [Amer- ... legal with acquiring like were more concerned Judge Lindsay, writers ican] (Parsloe, accuracy.” for their courts than with historical juvenile prestige States, 60-63.) the United supra, pp. Juvenile Justice in Britain and review of In commissioned a thorough 1927 the English government Committee on the “Departmental court and related institutions 1840 Infant found the the Treatment of This committee Offenders.” Young to deal with Act to be the sole of the use of equity Felons example of indi- value to “Guardianship.—The 1908. delinquents England prior offender, insisted an so much vidual care and the reclamation of sympathy reformers, interesting and an recent was years, early recognized for the Care In that an ‘Act year to enlist it was made in 1840. attempt to the High Felony’ gave be committed for Education Infants who may infant, custody of such the care and assign Court Chancery power of him. ... A take charge to the willing up age person legislation in the at a later date somewhat similar was introduced provision in the children, the child being place with dealing cruelty power given that the not until 1908 care of a relative or other fit but it was person, the law.” against was invoked in with principle again dealing offenders Of- of Young on the Treatment Committee (Report Departmental added.) fenders italics in depth. They this issue
Modern American scholars likewise have probed the American to it conclude had the ascribed English powers never equity wardship proceedings trial in courts the denial seeking justify findings summarizes the of crime. One scholar against juveniles accused an historical inquiry: ‘constitutional excluded from the “Until have been recently, juveniles ’ some the state patriae thought give
scheme’ because partly ‘parens prevented somehow over them. The use of the power phrase special are in conflict. interests we in when state and individual balancing engage after . . . before “This law in chancery article examines became patriae’ It patriae’’ parens became it. shows ‘parens part *31 a for various that the chancellor desired to synonym state interests helpful them, estates; the further: the furtherance among juvenile of preservation education; of of mar juvenile and the from juveniles improper protection the riages. Hopefully, ‘parens this to rest notion that paper puts patriae’ more, that, conflict, was or is so when state and anything they juve are in Law, nile interests can be and balanced as usual.” Juvenile (Cogan, Before 147.)26 (1970) the Entrance “Parens Patriae” 22 So.Cal.L. Rev. After of Professor Norval Morris said it in “The stronger juvenile terms. from what a the con-
emerged patriae was of legal parens misinterpretation This was for cept. concept different and developed quite purposes—property had wardship—and to do with do nothing juvenile what courts now. Though we keep it, prating parens patriae brace this of assumption power blended well with the earlier humanitarian in the churches and traditions other charitable organizations childsaving. child care and The regarding juvenile court is thus the and product error maternal paternal generosity, Hawkins, which is a not unusual genesis Morris & The illegitimacy.” Honest Politician’s Guide to Crime Control lesson, course,
The American is not that somehow lack legislatures constitutional to shift authority to the juvenile proceedings delinquency eq- uitable jurisdiction of the The court. legitimacy invoking parens patriae to transfer custody children from state delinquent their the is parents not issue However, in this case. the without so constitutionality doing a affording the during determination of is a dif- delinquency very ferent and question much very parens before us. In 1850 when England was patriae A., invoked the it has been purpose case Javier to jury trial attached. 26Another chancery’s patriae scholar parens concludes even true or power is not proper Instead, juvenile source of the argues American dependency jurisdiction. court’s he jurisdiction actually grew English authority gave out poor they of the and the laws poor remove children custody apprentice from the of their parents employers. and them “The authorized history ju- version of as The courts’ is somewhat follows. times, chancery. venile court a equity was successor to protected From earliest has dependent who neglected parens patriae. infants were under . . . court was statutory First, a expression impulses. interpretation of these This contains several errors. equity protected courts of arrangements ‘depen- the feudal than property and rather neglected;’ dent dependent and chancery protected there is no evidence that ever neglected Second, statutorily as were protective defined. courts’ . . . jurisdiction laws, poor was a direct descendant particularly more those which allowed apprentice the state to pauper’s parents’ children . . power without consent. . The children, equity over the custody precedent, estates sometimes the rather than fact, legal used argument, palatable poor practice separating after make law (Rendleman, parents.” Chancery children from their Parens Patriae: From to the Juvenile 203, 256-257.) So.Cal.L. Rev.
3. present juvenile law a delinquency court to authorizes California declare a juvenile to be a ward the court on the basis he finding of committed a felony, Constitution demands the therefore California juvenile be entitled to have that made a finding by jury.
We are now in a position summarize the status delin- trial quent’s right jury in 1850 with England. Youngsters charged a lim- ited class minor criminal conduct could be for a deprived liberty maximum of three months without a trial. But those jury charged with fe- lonious (and conduct acts) most lesser criminal were entitled to trial by jury. Parliament had expressly refused to legislation pass permitting juveniles to be committed to reform schools than three periods longer months with- out a jury trial. And where parens equity’s patriae jurisdiction depended a upon minor’s misbehavior, personal those courts could only declare the minor a ward of the court after a found he jury had committed a felony.
Under the law, present California juvenile the court’s delinquency power to declare a juvenile a ward of the court is he predicated committed proof a criminal act.27 Indeed before a court can make the it did in disposition this case—a of over 15 wardship have years—it must a proof beyond rea- sonable doubt28 the juvenile committed the act specific charged29 act must be a felony—not seen, a misdemeanor.30 As we have merely 1850 a England juvenile would be entitled to a trial in the jury proceeding which determined whether he committed the actually felonious act. Only then could the court without a decide whether it was in the jury juvenile’s best interests to declare him him a ward and in the place custody some institution or individual other than his since an En- parents. Accordingly, glish juvenile with charged a would have been felony entitled to a trial before declared being 1850, a ward of the an American juvenile accused of a a felony possesses constitutional before being declared a ward of the court in 1984. 27“Any person who age years is under the any of 18 when he law violates ... is within jurisdiction court, may adjudge which person such to be a ward of the (Welf. Code, court.” & added.) Inst. italics § beyond “Proof a reasonable doubt . . . be support finding must adduced to a that the minor person (Welf. is a Code, 701.) described Section 602 . . . .” & Inst. § 29In re Robert G. 837], Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d page P.2d see
960, infra. 30“In case in which the minor is physical custody removed from the parent of his or guardian as the result of an order wardship pursuant made to Section ... the minor may not be physical held in period confinement for a in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment which could imposed upon an adult convicted of the oifense or offenses brought which (Welf. ... jurisdiction minor under the & court.” Inst. Code, 726.) § “Except state, cases where a punishment prescribed by any different is every law of this offense declared to be a punishable by misdemeanor imprisonment exceeding . . . not six (Pen. Code, 19.) months . . . .” § clear, As One 1941 Chevrolet made Coupe crystal classification accompanying England. trial was fixed To century mid-19th return to the Constitution language One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe. “[T]he does not permit to confer on the Legislature trying courts power according the course of always which has been chancery any question (37 triable to the according course the common law Cal.2d jury.” Whether felon equitable youthful considerations indicated should be declared a custody ward of court and in the of some placed benevolent organization an individual other than his parents “ques- *33 tion to according the course of chancery” authority under [tried] felon, 1840 Infant is, Felons Act. But whether a minor was a that given he whether indeed had committed a crime and for reason was eligible this ward, to be declared a that awas which has been triable “question always to the according course of the common law a It is by this “historical jury.” which right” I, is made “inviolate” article 16 of the by section California Constitution. The Legislature cannot extinguish right by this merely shifting the determination of criminal conduct law from to v. One equity. (People 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, 283.) Cal.2d
4. Auto binds Equity this court but urge we Court to recon- Supreme sider and correct the erroneous historical finding by Supreme California years Court 60 to be ago English equity allowed delinquents declared wards the court without trial. jury
This completes the search for fact” are “historical we directed under- take One by Coupe Chevrolet and its The “historical fact” progeny. which emerges is that in 1850 not be England juveniles could incarcerated as felons nor be declared wards for their criminal conduct unless and until they had been convicted a trial they enjoyed where to trial right fact,” jury. found this “historical One 1941 Chev- Having rolet Coupe tells us California Constitution confers that same right juvenile offenders in this state. the conclusion logic compels Consequently, it is unconstitutional declare wards of the court under Welfare juveniles and Institutions Code section 602 without first them a trial where affording they enjoy to trial right jury. far,
This conclusion does not end our however. Thus we have inquiry, described our historical if research as we were the first California court to
discuss the status of the offender’s trial in 1850 right jury Eng- land. As most aware, readers of this are there was one earlier opinion into excursion this territory. Sixty years in In re Daedler ago, 467], Cal. 320 P. the California Court the Juvenile upheld Supreme Court Law of it denied delin- against objection alleged juvenile their quents constitutional It did trial. so jury expressly finding
English courts had declare Chancery jurisdiction offenders wards of the court and therefore California do also. The courts could so implicit but unmentioned that English Chancery this assumption opinion courts could declare juvenile offenders wards of the court without affording seen, them a trial. As we the Daedler court have was wrong accepting assumption. Daedler was the first to delve into Supreme opinion English legal it history; was not the first to consider the constitutionality denying jury trial to juveniles. Much earlier in our state’s the California history, Court had held a minor could be committed to an industrial school without (Ex However, trial. Parte Ah Peen 51 Cal. this proceeding involved a child “not subject control whatever—his parental parents being unknown” and was the antecedent de- day juvenile present pendency contrast, jurisdiction the courts. In when the California Su- Court first preme confronted a which de- juvenile delinquency proceeding nied trial, the accused a found this denial violated California *34 Constitution’s guarantee of a right jury trial.
In Ex Parte Becknell 692], 119 Cal. P. the Court consid- 496 [51 ered an 1893 statute31 which authorized an accused grand juries certify under 18 was age “a suitable to be committed to the care and person guard- ” School, of a ianship juvenile the facility, Whittier State rather than to be tried in the criminal courts. This recommendation was then referred to trial who judges held without which were the hearings juries rough equivalent of the jurisdictional If, hearing on the phase present juvenile process. basis of the evidence jury’s a trial with presented, judge agreed grand recommendation, it State then committed the to the Whittier School. 1897,
In the California Court finding had no trouble Supreme pro- decisions, cedure was unconstitutional. Without to cite bothering any prior the court unanimously held: “As a the order of judgment imprisonment court is The superior void. cannot be as a criminal boy imprisoned without a trial void, by jury. As award of it is guardianship equally his parents—his natural their guardians—cannot his right deprived 23, 1893, 31Section 13 of the Act of March related the Whittier State School Statutes chapter page original section 332 amended section 17 of the act to read: “If minor, any accusation of the any against any commission of crime be made under the shall age eighteen years, any grand jury, charge supported by before appears and the to be trial, discretion, put may, evidence sufficient to upon grand jury the accused in their accused, finding against Superior instead of an indictment Court that it return to the appears to them that the person accused is a suitable to be committed to the care commitment, guardianship may thereupon of said order if sat institution. Court such made, may isfied from the ought evidence that such commitment to be which examination parent be waived guardian of such minor.” care, custody, and services to which society, they except proceeding are made and in which it unfit or parties, is shown are unwilling 497-498.) or unable to (119 their duties.” Cal. at perform parental pp. Thus, in its first encounter with a which committed procedure to a delinquents without trial the California Su- facility by jury, Court held preme the denial of this to be unconstitutional. It also right found the same end expressly could not be under the guise accomplished guardianship proceeding least the absence of the juvenile’s proof were unable to parents care for the child.
Twenty-seven later, however, years Court California Supreme appar- ently experienced of heart—or it change mind. This time confronted the relatively recent Juvenile Court Act of 1915. In another unanimous deci- sion, Daedler, In re supra, 194 Cal. denial of a upheld so, Peen, In jury trial. it treated Ex Parte Ah doing Cal. 280 as the controlling California overruled authority Ex Parte expressly Thus, Becknell. the Daedler court Ah ignored crucial fact Ex Parte Peen involved a dependency not a proceeding since delinquency proceeding was based upon lack juvenile’s rather than his parents commission Becknell, criminal contrast, offenses. was a in- delinquency proceeding, deed the only prior California ruling on trial for a juvenile offender committed to the care and guardianship ju- venile facilities. Yet the Daedler court dismissed Becknell as “a brief opin- ion” which had reached its result “without citation of authority.”32
In the 60
Daedler,
years since In re
the California
Court has
Supreme
cited its holding without
its rationale a total of
reconsidering
8 times.33
32The Daedler court cited eight
juvenile right
out-of-state
on the
decisions
trial
(C.C.S.D.
parte
1911)
123;
issue: Ex
(1907)
Ohio
196 F.
Mill v. Brown
31
Januszewski
609];
Utah
(1905)
198];
473
P.
Commonwealth
[88
v. Fisher
952 Daedler times,34
Courts
also have cited
Appeal
without re-
many
again
its
considering
although
some
reasoning,
occasionally
reluctance
expressing
to continue
trial
denying jury
juvenile delinquents.35 Accordingly,
denial of
jury trial
accused juvenile offenders these
60
rests
past
years
re
In Daedler
solely
authority
the rationale of that opinion.
Daedler,
In In
re
Court found
Supreme
justification
denying
by jury
California
in
juveniles accused of criminal conduct
the historical
of the
wardship powers
English Court
a rationale
Chancery,
already
the Daedler
discussed and dismissed
earlier
As
opinion.
expressed
court,
court: “The theory that the state and
instrumentality,
its
is the
of all
guardian
such minors as
its care and
ancient
require
protection
origin,
Crown,
back to
feudal
looking
times
when the
England
mortem,
post
inquisitio
through the
had
matter of
over
supervision
deprive parents
custody
specific
a
finding
without
held
abandonment. The court
it was
People
(1942)
not.
v.
The Daedler does not even mention—and court opinion presumably did not have before of the historical information discussed it—any Daedler opinion.36 does not even touch the Infant Felons Act of 1840 upon which required before a offender could be declared a by jury ward of the court in Nor mention Parliament’s England. does opinion rejection the juvenile offender bill of 1850 which to allow sought juve- niles to be committed to without trial by reform school for several years It does not jury. discuss the 1840 Youthful bill which was defeated Offender or the successful 1847 act which limited the denial of trial to youngsters with charged trivial than three liberty crimes less deprived months. Indeed the not have had California Court in 1924 may Supreme available to it the research the true historical materials needed to uncover facts on this issue.37 36We retrieved the Supreme Court’s file in In re Daedler from the state archives. None bills, statutes, any parliamentary briefs or other documents in that file cited English any debates or opinion. decisions discussed in our Nor did of the American decisions which were cite of these materials discussed those briefs documents 933-934, English legal already about history—other equity pages than the cases described at file, ante. As best we can ascertain opinion from the Daedler case *37 opinion. Court did not have before it nor in our consider the historical data discussed right jury 37The juvenile proceedings only right trial in not the to remain inchoate in compelled—to explore
California because courts have not been thor- upon—or called felt
954
Nonetheless, us, stare binds remains whether decisis question court, inferior this erroneous juvenile’s right about finding (Auto Sales, trial in (1962) v. Court 57 England. Equity Inc. Superior 937].) Cal.2d 450 369 P.2d As the Cal.Rptr. Supreme [20 decisis, Court made has clear: the doctrine abundantly “Under of stare all tribunals inferior are to follow decisions of exercising jurisdiction required courts The this court exercising jurisdiction. . . . decisions of are superior of binding upon must followed all state courts California. by . . . Courts the law declared jurisdiction inferior must exercising accept courts of superior It is not their function to overrule decisions jurisdiction. of (Auto v. higher Superior court. Sales Equity [Citations omitted.]” Court, 450, 455.) 57 Cal.2d supra, fact,
Based mistaken determination on Daedler’s of historical California courts denied trial have their for 60 rights constitutional youngsters The years. defendant in this denied Were right. case likewise was this within our power, we would reverse the him remand against judgment I, case consistent of section guarantee with the article 16 of the California Constitution.
One command may case we have this the stern of implies despite power (1975) Auto In Equity. City Los San Fernando City Angeles v. 1250], Cal.3d 199 Court Supreme 537 P.2d California Cal.Rptr. did confronted a lower stare not bind ruling court decisis expressly holding it to two previous The trial court refused follow high decisions. these decisions for It found a reason also available in the case. present Court had based its earlier on an erroneous determination Supreme opinions instance, of historic fact—in this and Mexican water status Spanish law history. colonial of California during period its San Fer-
Although
106-page
City
Angeles City
Los
v.
opinion
nando was written over a decade after Auto
Court did
Equity,
not condemn this
not even men-
mutiny.
high
Indeed our
court did
apparent
tion Auto Equity. Instead it conducted an extensive
into
inquiry
independent
oughly
English
common
as it
law
existed in
For example,
pauperis
1850.
the in forma
rights
indigent
California litigants
also are defined
reference to
forma pauperis
the in
rights
indigent Englishmen
(Martin
(1917)
in 1850.
Superior
plaintiff upon relied pueblo right imported for assurance that all of the water would constitute an addition to any its water resources rather replacing expensive than of its less pre-existing supply from the native Angeles waters of the Los . All River. . . defendants [f] have been on notice of plaintiff’s the existence pueblo water since first com- Hence, menced extracting water from the plaintiff’s heavy ULARA. in contrast to reliance on the existence of pueblo right there supposition has beefi no reliance on of its ” Fernando, (City Angeles City 246..) nonexistence. Los San Cal.3d at 40City Angeles Los judge-made involved property rules not an individual’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, Court felt free to take into much consideration how reli reason, ance placed had been existing the settled For rule. it cannot be said for *39 We are to draw the tempted lesson from Los City City v. Angeles of
San Femando that the Court allows Supreme lower courts decline to follow its in prior decisions situation where those courts in unique good faith find the decisions were on based an erroneous “historical finding fact” about foreign law. This is the rare situation where the court’s high legal conclusion is not based on legal judicial reasoning but judgments on objective factual findings. Thus the of the court’s de- validity decision on the pends of its accuracy facts. Neither Court nor citi- Supreme zens of this are state well served on by legal erroneous principles predicated findings “historical fact.”
Nonetheless, this court places high value stare decisis and particularly Auto Equity’s mandate that lower courts defer to the Court the Supreme question whether and when Court decisions should be prior Supreme overruled. We have concluded it would be reluctantly for us presumptuous to read too much into our the restraint court demonstrated in high City of Los City True, Angeles San Fernando. it did not condemn the trial court for refusing follow On the previous Supreme decisions. other hand, neither did it excuse this deviation from Auto expressly Equity. Accordingly we we conclude are bound to follow In re Daedler unless until it is overruled we it Court itself. And must follow no Supreme matter how be, erroneous may we feel it to indeed no matter how it wrong in fact turn out may to be. We can Court in the only urge Supreme strongest possible terms to for this case grant petition hearing reconsider In re Daedler and its of “historical fact.”41 findings B. Whatever Its Status in System Juvenile Justice No California Longer Qualifies as an Which Can Be Equitable Constitutionally Proceeding Conducted Right Without the to Jury Trial.
Even assuming juvenile offenders could be wards of the court declared without trial in 1850 England, that would not continued denial justify of trial California courts. In present pro- purpose, cedure and consequence the juvenile justice system has become something which no can be longer justified part of or other wardship equitable jurisdiction of the courts exercised in the interests of the solely offender. the 60 During years since Daedler our court proceedings “pueblo right” certain the court have even would modified the water were convinced simply wrong. Supreme correct and the earlier Court decisions case, course, present balancing. sort The does not allow this courts cannot perpetuate an rights merely erroneous someone has denial of constitutional because come “rely” deprivation. on that accept 41We neither naive so assume the Court will are so nor overconfident as to conducting inquiry our into independent conclusion the Daedler court erred without its own issue “historical fact.” have evolved into a law could have only which common process English been law courts. With the under the criminal placed jurisdiction sentence of three “trivial” offenses a maximum exception carrying months, trial42 juveniles were England guaranteed in all cases within the courts. jurisdiction Consequently, criminal the law California are entitled to that same youngsters delinquency pro- *40 in ceedings juvenile courts. The Daedler
1. court’s description juvenile delinquency proceedings of in 1924.
In the California Court was able distinguish juvenile courts from adult criminal in terms which of spoke proceedings glowing benevolent purposes and minimal As described the consequences. court: Daedler “The of the under statute is to save minors purpose age of 17 from years and conviction on of prosecution charges misdemeanor and crimes and to relieve them from the consequent stigma attaching thereto; to and guard them and evil-minded against themselves protect per- them; sons surrounding train them protect mentally, physically, It seeks to morally. benefit not the child but the also only community the child and more influences and surrounding with better training elevating it in all counts for and usefiilness as a member of good citizenship Under it the society. state which is the through organs its appropriate guard- child, ian of the children within its borders . . . of the custody assumes restraint, imposes wholesome duties It .... is of performs parental the same nature as education statutes which authorize of chil- compulsory dren, of them binding out during minority, guardians appointment and trustees to take who are of those charge property incapable affairs, insane, their managing own and the the confinement of the like.” (In Daedler, re supra, 194 Cal. at p. from
Quoting Fisher case of Commonwealth v. leading 48, (5) 198], Pa. court continued Ann.Cas. 92 A. the California “ characterizing court in 1924: ‘There procedural aspects juvenile was no when is only crime here and the act is there operative trial, to be no trial. The if of the act is to very though purpose prevent tried, the welfare of the that the minor should public power require it is not taken is not for but as stated the act the trial away; already try a child accused of a him from such an ordeal crime but to save mercifully wake, with the in its own and the prison good if the child’s penitentiary Daedler, (In best interests re state such salvation.’” justify added.) Cal. italics 931-940, pages 42See ante.
Now 60 years later we find the has redefined the Legislature purposes the juvenile process make them more 60 years Those same have punitive. dramatic brought changes followed courts procedures word—formal, them to causing become trials the full sense adver- sarial and of a public. Finally, the accused consequences finding committed crime now charged resemble what would follow con- closely viction in adult criminal court. 2. Purposes no those delinquency longer solely guard- law
ian in best acting interest the juvenile. The differences between the 1924 and 1984 juvenile justice systems are symbolized by the affixed to captions juvenile delinquency proceedings Daedler”; two eras. In 1924 it was “In re in 1984 it is “The People of ” *41 the State versus Javier A. The in is consistent change caption of California with a in change In motive. 1924 the on focused the proceedings protecting child from unwholesome the environmental influences. In 1984 is emphasis on the protecting of the state of citizens California from the child.
At thereafter, the time the Daedler and for the opinion decades stated emotional, of the purpose juvenile court act serve was to “the spiritual, mental and physical welfare the minor” and “to for him secure custody, care, and discipline nearly as to that which should possible equivalent have been (Stats. 1961, 1616, 2.) given by his But in parents.” ch. § 1975 the added and Legislature a new second to the beneficent generally purpose of the language statement in the Juvenile Law. This addi- original tional goal “(a) in a subsection which reads: placed completely separate Law, 202) (the this ...” Juvenile Court section purpose chapter also quences officers, and [1] “(b) criminal juvenile courts ... includes activity, shall protection to such take into purpose probation account public such protection from officers, the conse- peace 819, 1975, in (Stats. their under public determinations this ch. chapter.” added.) satisfied, italics Not inserted 1977 the also a new Legislature § clause in the first of the section. This further refinement reads: paragraph minors; “to protect criminal public conduct impose from (Stats. 1977, minor a sense of for his acts . . . .” ch. responsibility own added.) italics § The courts have not blind juvenile been to the of the courts. shifting goals Even before California Legislature enacted this em- language express phasizing the United Court had protection public, States Supreme of.the recognized actual similar of the were to those adult purposes already criminal system. court in a case out of a Writing arising unanimous California Chief held: Justice “Al- delinquency Burger proceeding, provide its the desire though system genesis had juvenile-court in- youth, to deal with problems distinctive procedure setting conduct, in recent our decisions those manifested anti-social cluding benign originally between the years recognized gap have there is realities. conception system its in that regard
“Under our decisions we no distinction persuasive can find & to Cal. Welf. between the in this case pursuant conducted proceeding (1966) each which Inst’ns Code sec 701 and a criminal prosecution, criminal designed ‘to vindicate vital interest very [the] enforcement 519, 528, (Breed laws.’’ Jones 421 U.S. [Citation omitted.]” 346, 355, 356, prin- L.Ed.2d double [holding jeopardy S.Ct. 1779] as in adult criminal ciples just prosecutions], apply proceedings italics added.) continuing
By Division Two of court was acknowledging criminal evolution of California toward the of the adult goals courts courts. “In [County Espinoza Cal.App.2d Alameda v. existence, (52 480)] but rejected the court acknowledged Cal.Rptr. *42 validity, held current court juvenile belief that under widely practices Code section Welfare and Institutions proceedings involving under petitions 602 are in criminal and the claim that such reality proceedings proceedings Whatever the are ‘for the . . . the minor’ is fiction. protection pure filed, it belief in the is validity of that 1966 when Espinoza opinion 168, 164, (In (1980) re 106 Cal.App.3d true K. certainly today.” Gregory while 1984, 2 35].) fn. the California Supreme In Cal.Rptr. [165 with cited “section 602 are not criminal” technically admitting proceedings criminal reality pro- Two’s are “in they Division characterization approval is “pure the the of the minor claim are for ceedings” protection 342, 1, 9, (In (1984) Cal.Rptr. fiction.” re Jerald C. 36 Cal.3d fn. [201 917].) 678 P.2d as adult public adversarial and nearly
3. Procedures now as formal, criminal court. been have 1924, may
In court indeed followed in juvenile procedures “there was informal, could be said fairly so nonadversarial private However, the 60 years in no trial . . here” as the Daedler court found. . until the pres- away since Daedler each of these attributes has been stripped ent identical adult criminal court. nearly process with,
To informal, begin nonthreatening so crucial atmosphere rationale for allowing juvenile courts without has been juries43 operate replaced all the and technicalities of an adult criminal trial. formality As 1960, recently as a California could commission “Juvenile court report, are hearings conducted in in generally sessions an informal manner private somewhat along lines of a . Normally case conference. . . the probation officer, in his role of summarizes petitioner, petition allegations and significant court, turn, case factors. The in child re- may question his in garding implication . . and delinquent may act . also question parents regarding child-parent is then ren- relationships. judgment (Governor’s dered.” Justice, Special Study Commission on Juvenile A California, Study in Administration Juvenile II part Justice 7.) If this indeed anwas accurate juvenile description proceed- ings intervening years changed have all that.
Juvenile now over feature the same contests admission of proceedings evidence as adult proceedings since admissible a criminal only proof can be used to support committed the criminal offense. finding (Welf. Code, 701.) & Inst. obtained evidence is inadmissible Illegally just § in an (Welf. Code, as adult & prosecution. 700.1.) Inst. Motions sup § press ordinarily are heard in similar pretrial to 1538.5 separate hearings (Welf. Code, in adult proceedings 700.1.) court. & Inst. The crime proved § against must be the one in the specific alleged petition charging or be a lesser included offense of the crime which alleged. was specifically G., (In re Robert Cal.3d Commission of that crime must be established a reasonable doubt in an adult beyond just as criminal (Welf. Code, trial. & 701; Inst. In re 397 U.S. Winship § 1068].) L.Ed.2d 90 S.Ct. The same of joinder, rules consolidation and severance of charges apply adult delinquency proceedings (Welf. Code, criminal cases. & (b).) Inst. do the rules subd. So § *43 (Joe of pretrial discovery the evidence People’s those supporting charges. Z. v. Superior (1970) 594, Court 3 26].) Cal.3d 797 478 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [91 A court juvenile cannot judge accept admission he committed juvenile’s the crime unless he or she first the accused about his fully legal admonishes (In re Michael M. rights. (1970) 887].) 11 741 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [96 Moreover, (In the court must the his re notify juvenile appeal. (1974) Arthur N. 36 89].) Cal.App.3d 935 Cal.Rptr. [112 juvenile 43“Since were helpless offenders considered children in need care and atten tion, courtroom, court, important that the the the routine methods officers of the operation, police and the goals juvenile way ultimate of the should in resemble court no or courts the juvenile parlor traditional criminal court be courts. An ideal should more like study than an official atmosphere courtroom. . . courtroom be [T]he . the should part relaxed informal so as encourage cooperation trust and on of the offender.’1 (Platt, (1977) 144-145.) pp. Child Savers
961 As if to belie what deciding the court is underlying justification only in the re- is best interests of the notions of “criminal same juvenile, as in adult sponsibility” court. apply
A “true can be made if the is sane. finding” only juvenile delinquency (Welf. Code, 702.3; & (1968) Inst. In re 329 Cal.App.2d M.G.S. § 808].) Cal.Rptr. leg- elsewhere (Ironically, although [72 assiduously islation avoids is suggestion being any juvenile delinquent crime, found of a guilty section 702.3 allows the specifically not guilty reason plead insanity.)
Meanwhile the adversarial of the been both rec- nature has proceedings ognized guaranteed by extension confront cross- rights (Welf. Code, 630; examine re witnesses & Inst. In Gault 387 U.S. § 1428]) L.Ed.2d 87 S.Ct. and the counsel [18 appointed (Welf. Code, Gault, & 679; Inst. In re Probation devoted officers supra). § best interests of the child the case to court. formerly presented Now a “prosecuting attorney People appear [must] behalf of (Welf. Code, added.) State California.” & Inst. The code italics § itself concedes the aspiration to conduct these in an “informal proceedings nonadversary atmosphere” longer no where there are contested is- applies (Welf. sues law or Code, fact. & Inst. As the Court § out (Carl W.) (1975) in v. Cal.3d pointed People Court Superior notable, 277-278 P.2d “It . . that in Cal.Rptr. . 807]: adopting section 680 the . . . made a the bill Legislature change proposed which be Commission must it added to the significant: considered second sentence of the bill the . . . where there introductory clause ‘[ejxcept ais contested Thus, issue fact or . . . sentence law.’ whereas second proposed by Commission in effect that in all cases the provided be proceedings should conducted in an nonadversary informal atmosphere, the Legislature, by indicated that adding language clearly question, more formality should observed when there was a contested factual or issue.” legal
With all decades, these changes over the it is not procedure past sur- to find one author prising reporting: “Many [California court] judges conduct contested like other criminal jurisdictional hearings just . 6.6, . . trial.” Cal. Juvenile Thompson, Court Deskbook section (Carl 271, 278, quoted People W.), Superior Cal.3d *44 6.) fn. the United the
Finally, Legislature States Court and California Supreme have the away recently cloak of in the five As stripped years. privacy past 1975, the as California Court some court noting juvenile Supreme feared much to judges trials would attract much and do “jury publicity 962 eliminate the necessary juvenile which court confidentiality is for effective ” (Carl 271,
proceedings. W.), 15 Cal.3d (People Superior 276, 3, fn. italics added.) But in Court held 1979 the United States states cannot from prohibit newspapers juveniles names publishing (Smith charged juvenile Mail Co. 443 court. v. Daily Publishing 399, U.S. 97 L.Ed.2d 2667].) 99 S.Ct. Then in Legislature [61 amended Welfare and Code 67644to allow both the Institutions section pub “admitted, lic and the to be be press on the same basis as admitted they may to trials in a court of criminal where the is jurisdiction” juvenile charged with commission of of a one list serious offenses. This any long list murder, (Welf. Code, 676, includes & attempted (a)(11)) Inst. subd. with § A., case, which Javier in the So juvenile instant much for charged. necessity confidentiality to effective court juvenile proceedings. ” in years juvenile 4. In the since “true findings consequences of crim- resulting have come to those delinquency proceedings resemble from inal convictions. offense,
Once it is found a juvenile has indeed committed a criminal he is not in much better than an adult criminal defendant. Instead of shape taken from own being away his if for best family only necessary his inter ests, under current a be in a standards will incarcerated same an facility (Welf. reason as adult—if it will the public. protect Code, & (b).) Moreover, Inst. subd. of his incarceration length § will but, be influenced not own interests merely by best sim juvenile’s adult, ilar to an The nature of the he court offense committed. must announce a expressly whether the a or felony crime is misdemean- charged (In or. re Kenneth H. Cal.3d 659 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 1156].) misdemeanor, If only offender not be the juvenile may physically confined more than one But if be confined it is a he as year. felony may long as the have for the aggravated term adult could received same (Welf. Code, offense. & Inst. §§ (a) “(a) provides: requested 44Section subdivision minor concerning Unless petition any public whom the has been parent guardian present, filed and or shall not be admitted to hearing. judge may referee admit nevertheless such persons as he deems legitimate particular to have a direct and interest in the case or the However, (b), except public work of the of the provided court. members subdivision admitted, shall they may on the same basis as in court of criminal be admitted trials
jurisdiction, hearings concerning petitions pursuant alleging that a Section filed minor person is a described one in Section 602 reason violation following offenses: “(1) Murder. (< “(11) with attempted Assault intent to murder or murder. “(12) Assault with a firearm or destructive device. “(13) (Italics by any bodily injury.” likely great Assault force produce means of added.) *45 The courts confinement also have come to realize not does place make that much difference. Incarceration in a is about the juvenile facility same as incarceration in an adult As the United States prison. Jones,
Court held in Breed v. “We believe it is supra, U.S. 519: simply too late day conclude . . . that a not at juvenile is put jeopardy determine proceeding whose is to he object whether has committed acts that violate a criminal law and whose include both potential consequences inherent in stigma such a determination and the deprivation liberty for many years. ... In In re Gault . . . this Court concluded that ... where the ‘proceeding issue is whether the child will be found to be “delin- quent” subjected to the loss of his liberty for years comparable seriousness to a felony . . . The Court prosecution.’ stated that the term had ‘delinquent’ ‘come to involve only less than the term slightly stigma adults,’ “criminal” applied . . . and that. . . . ‘commitment is a depri- vation of It liberty. will, is incarceration one’s against whether it is called “criminal” or “civil.”’
“Nor does the fact ‘that the
of the commitment is rehabilitative
purpose
and not
. .
punitive
.
its
change
nature. . . .
of the
for
Regardless
purposes
which the incarceration is
the fact remains that it is
imposed,
incarceration.
The rehabilitative goals
admirable,
of the system are
but
do not
change
the drastic nature of the action taken. Incarceration of adults is also intended
Jones,
produce
(Breed
rehabilitation.’ Fain v.
Duff,
F.2d at 225.”
529-530,
5. In 1984 the juvenile court process no is a longer guardianship pro- ceeding properly cognizable in but equity has the attributes a criminal requiring right to trial by jury. all Adding these changes we cannot together, conclusion escape juvenile court of 1984 bears little resemblance to the benevolent 1924 ver- sion described in In re Daedler. During succeeding years pur- poses juvenile have become more its process punitive, procedures formalistic, adversarial and and the of conviction public, consequences 45Anecdotal suggests may ju evidence conditions of confinement be worse some delinquents venile prisoners. description than for adult For a recent of California’s facilities, Shackles, Isolation,” see “Inside the Unruly State’s Juvenile Jails: Face Youths Times, Angeles I, 1-3, Sunday, July Los part pages part For the most 28-29. halls, like, article deals with camps delinquents and the who are detained in not also, jails. adult Murphy, Kindly System See Our Parents—The State: The Juvenile Justice 46-101, and How It pages Works discussing similar conditions at the Illinois Indus Boys. trial School for delinquents grounds Illinois also denies trial on merely conducting courts are wardship proceedings.
964 re concede In Daedler
much more harsh. even we to if were Accordingly, applied test for the to trial to the court appropriate right juvenile jury 1924, process the character of has so much in the changed that process convinced the Daedler court would be com- intervening 60 we are years a pelled to different conclusion.46 46Proposition 8 has possible grounds introduced a independent third and sufficient for ruling juveniles are now constitutionally by jury delinquency proceedings. entitled to trial in 9, 1982, I, Since June Proposition incorporated following language 8 in article section 28, (f) subdivision of the “Any prior any California Constitution: conviction of felony
person any in proceeding, criminal juvenile, whether or subsequently adult shall be used without added.) purposes (Italics limitation for of impeachment or enhancement of . . .” sentence . yet It finally has not been resolved whether provision officially this new constitutional juvenile defines proceedings proceedings” as “criminal and findings allows true in juvenile court to be used purposes impeachment as “criminal convictions” for en and Recently hancement. (1984) two Appeal (People Courts of held it not. v. does West 154 Cal.App.3d 63]; 100 Cal.Rptr. Anthony In re Cal.App.3d [201 R. 154 772 [201 299].) Cal.Rptr. Instead interpreted language apply only these courts this to to convictions juveniles in they adult criminal court juvenile after have been found unfit for in treatment construction, however, court. This Supreme opinion. conflicts with dictum in a Court In In H., re Kenneth juvenile Court specify held court must whether it finds juvenile delinquent a felony highlighting committed or misdemeanor. In some the con sequences observed, juvenile proceedings, distinction in potential Justice Kaus “[T]he for prejudice finding from a of felony Proposition by passage status has been increased 8, conviction, provides any which prior felony that juvenile, whether adult or ‘shall... be used without purposes impeachment any limitation or enhancement sentence in ’ ” (33 619, 3, proceeding. added.) criminal Cal.3d p.at fn. italics already Since we have persuasive grounds supporting identified two other a constitutional right jury juvenile trial for delinquents, attempt will apparent we not to resolve this conflict between Supreme holdings. Court Appeal dictum Court of But we do think it worthwhile to interpretation prevail, note that should the both the federal Kenneth H. require juveniles jury California in Constitutions will be afforded the trial delinquency proceedings. Proposition juvenile The in language only 8 is the courts the entire California reference If delinquency proceedings” Constitution. it is construed to define as “criminal re- cases convictions,” sulting in “criminal over this characterization would control the statutes which speak (Welf. merely “adjudging juvenile terms court.” & a minor to be ward Code, 602.) England, clearly by Inst. In jury 1850 minors were entitled to trial in all § proceedings.” California, one—including juveniles—may “criminal no And 1984 be sub- jected having proceedings” “criminal “criminal without the chance risk conviction” (Cf. by jury. Tracy to demand trial Municipal Cal.Rptr. Court Cal.3d 760 v. [150 785, [right marijuana prosecutions 587 P.2d simple possession trial attaches in 227] though only even liberty Legislature fine and no loss of be never- imposed, could because “misdemeanors”].) theless characterized these violations as Furthermore, proceedings, delinquency as criminal cases would be con- California by Supreme trolled guarantee decisions which trial under Sixth Amendment in proceeding longer criminal where the accused can receive sentence (Duncan Louisiana, than six only months. v. U.S. the United reason States Supreme Court Pennsylvania's juvenile tolerated denial of courts because were not deemed be “criminal which proceedings” could result “criminal (McKeiver Pennsylvania (1971) convictions.” U.S. L.Ed.2d 658, 664, 1976].) 91 S.Ct. The inevitability of this recognized Attorneys’ conclusion was the California District In Association. a handbook interpreting Proposition 8 prepared that association and the Center Policy for Criminal Management, language Justice is observed: “If ‘wheth- '* Whatever said court of might be about essence diminished 1984 version is criminal. This the fact reality cannot equitable retain the label of an action— delinquency proceedings *47 declaration of revolutionary wardship—despite changes philosophy, pro- cedure and deter- As the Court has “In consequence. explained: law, whether common mining the action was one triable a at the by jury court is not bound the of form of the action but rather the nature involved and the of rights gist facts of case—the the action. particular A trial must where the of the action is where the granted legal, gist action inis reality cognizable (People at law.” v. One 1941 Chevrolet hand, Coupe, supra, 283, 299.) 37 Cal.2d if “On the other the action is essentially one in and the relief equity ‘depends sought upon application doctrines,’ of (Citations equitable are not entitled to a trial.” parties Co., omitted.) (C & K Amber 23 Engineering Contractors v. Steel 1, Cal.3d 9 1136].) 587 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [151 “gist This of . the action” test the courts to requires peer through smoke screen of and statutory labels uncover the true substance of a given of type case. One is to frequently used describe what the case approach involves really and ask of that nature plain English something whether would have been heard in the law under the common courts or equity law. of “Stripped (Tibbitts conclusions and to ultimate facts” legal reduced (1958) v. 162 212]), P.2d a delin- Cal.App.2d [328 Fife quency in 1984 a court a vio- proceeding asks to decide whether child has lated a specified criminal law and is a whether this violation or mis- felony demeanor. If the court decides the child did beyond a reasonable doubt crime, can, commit the it in order to from criminal “protect public conduct,” deprive the child of his an liberty for same time period adult would lose his same criminal liberty law. violating
In 1850 England the was “in “gist reality the action” described just cognizable law.” Indeed in 1850 legal away a take England proceeding a child’s freedom on the have basis of his commission of a crime would been a “criminal and always heard in law courts never proceeding equity.”47 on liberty involved” are the child’s “rights personal hand one and the to be from criminal conduct public’s right protected juvenile’ er adult modify appears proceeding,’ is intended to ‘criminal in section (f), it must be concluded that the intent the amendment was redefine the terms ‘conviction’ proceeding’ finding’ ‘hearing’ ‘criminal to include . . that ‘true . and attending rights public trial and would be extended to ‘defendants’.” (Criminal Law, Policy Management, Prop. Justice University Diego San School of VII-9., (1982) added.) 8—the Rights Victim’s Bill p. italics general involving rule all proper at common law accusations of crimes 47“[T]he liberty (Ex Ting loss of as a punishment jury; Wong were Parte You triable ...” 627].) 106 Cal. P. [39 on the other. These are the in criminal law not type rights implicated Moreover, equity. the “facts of the case” are whether the child particular committed certain specified criminal acts.48 These are the same kinds of “ facts juries are asked to determine in adult criminal ‘Accu proceedings. ” sations of tried, law, criminal conduct are at the common . . . by jury; (People Powell 481], 87 Cal. P. quoting Cooley Constitutional (5th ed.) Limitations The determination whether the child committed the crime does not “depend upon application equi table doctrines.” It is an issue of fact in a case as juvenile delinquency much as it inis an adult criminal case. If a jury is capable deciding adult committed a crime it is equally capable deciding juvenile com mitted a crime.
The fact juvenile courts as such were unknown to the common law49does not affect the child’s right jury trial where the of the action” “gist is held, true, criminal. “It has been it is that the Constitution does not secure the right jury mean, in . special [to . . This does riot proceedings. trial] however, that the legislature may at will create new forms special pro- cedure, out parcel them the among subject-matter ordinary actions at law heretofore triable by jury whittle the to a thereby away right jury trial. (Cassell [Citations v. Gregori (1937) 28 omitted.]” Cal.App.2d Supp. 769, 774 P.2d 721].) Nor can [70 the create a new Legislature special procedure where jury and then over the inappropriate years trans- form it into a criminal without proceeding to trial reactivating right jury. No matter when the starts the whittling effect is same—Californians are denied trials in jury cases where they would have been available in 1850 England. This is I, precisely what article section 16 was designed pre- vent.
6. Auto Equity binds this court to Daedler but we Court urge Supreme consider, Daedler assuming correctly juvenile delinquency characterized proceedings actions wardship in in properly cognizable equity whether that is accurate in 1984 or whether those proceed- characterization in ings reality have become criminal in prosecutions properly cognizable law where there exists a constitutional to trial right by jury.
This court
has concluded
in
juvenile
cases
no matter
delinquency
labelled,
how
are criminal
Minors have
prosecutions.
always enjoyed right
48Significantly, when the
Appeal
unnecessary
California Court of
first held
trial was
insanity
emphasized
cases it
proceedings
inquiry
that sort of
“does not involve an
as to
committed,
(Matter
whether
crime had
been
Application
. . .”
O’Connor
Cal.App.
115],
added.)
P.
italics
49Proposals
courts,
separate juvenile
create
components
reform school and the other
present juvenile
justice system
pre-1850 England.
were
proposals,
considered
These
however,
rejected
were
sought
right
because
away
juvenile’s
also
to take
to trial
(See
by jury.
933-940,
pp.
ante.)
to trial
by jury
criminal
both in
and in
prosecutions
England
pre-1850
California. Under One 1941 Chevrolet
it follows California can no
Coupe
deny
right
were it
longer
cases.
delinquency
Consequently,
in our
we would
power
against
reverse
defendant in this
judgment
however,
case
this second and
Once
we are
independent ground.
again,
bound under Auto
to the
last authoritative decision
Equity
Supreme Court’s
cases,
trial in
constitutionality
denying
juvenile delinquency
thus,
In re Daedler. And
once
can
only
we
again
urge
to reconsider this
reex-
60-year-old
This time we ask the court to
opinion.
amine the Daedler rationale not
in the English
because what overlooked
system of
legal
1850 but
could
what it
not have foreseen about
shape
California
justice
system 1984.
If we are correct in our conclusion the California
court system
has now evolved into a
of “criminal
specie
prosecution,”
trial would be guaranteed
I,
not
16 of
only by article
section
the California
Constitution but by Amendments Six and Fourteen of the United States
Constitution as well. “The
all
pros
criminal
impartial jury ‘[i]n
ecutions’ under federal law is
the Sixth Amendment.
guaranteed by
Through
the Fourteenth Amendment that
has now been
requirement
imposed upon
*49
the
(McKeiver
528,
States. ...”
v.
Pennsylvania,
U.S.
supra,
[29
Louisiana,
658];
L.Ed.2d
145;
Duncan v.
U.S.
Bloom
supra, 391
v.
(1968)
Illinois
1477],
Nearly seven years ago California’s Chief
time is
Justice observed “[t]he
drawing
confront,
inevitably closer when this court
in
the
light
must
of
in
developing changes
the functions of the
court
whether
juvenile
system,
the
of
immunity
that system from all of the
the
of
criminal courts
protections
can withstand
(In
constitutional
re
P.
22 Cal.3d
scrutiny.”
Mitchell
946, 962,
fn. 14
(dis.
Bird,
J.)
587 P.
C.
Cal.Rptr.
opn.
[151
1144]
We humbly submit that what
in
was
closer
1978 has now
drawing inevitably
arrived. The
issue
to
juvenile
trial in
right
jury
delinquency proceedings
reconsideration,
is not just
for
ripe
it is
Supreme
overripe.50
50Two
recently
other states
right
jury
juvenile
have held there is a
to a
trial in
constitutional
cases,
delinquency
recognizing
delinquency proceedings
equivalent
are the
prosecutions: Peyton
criminal
Nord
C. to Trial Policy Right Considerations Do Not Denial Justify in Juvenile Jury Delinquency Proceedings. devoted to policy
Much brief and oral People’s argument ar: to in jury of a trial guments. right constitutional Purportedly, recognition in the would major disruptions cases cause delinquency with boxes. trials justice system. jury Jury Courtrooms are not equipped In the People take too much are inevitable. essence delays time. up Lengthy if system argue might impossible separate juvenile operate the accused were trial by jury. offered the to elect opportunity understate,
This court is not tend to They these persuaded by arguments. indeed trial. ignore, jury They values positive promoted by right And, event, also may overstate the costs of this these right. policy considerations cannot dictate the fate of the trial. Fundamental right jury constitutional incon- must be enforced whatever the administrative rights venience or financial cost.
1. The trial. right jury benefits of We have had already occasion to mention the reverence accorded trial by 931-932, 935-936, 939-940, common (See ante.) law England. pages The United States Court has been almost as enthusiastic pro- claiming values served “The trial in right. guarantees the Federal and State reflect about the Constitutions a profound judgment inway which law should be A enforced and administered. justice criminal granted defendants order to prevent oppression Government be tried .... an accused with the Providing of his by jury him an inestimable peers gave safeguard against corrupt *50 or biased, overzealous and or eccentric prosecutor against complaint, If judge. the defendant of a the common-sense preferred judgment jury the more tutored but of the single less reaction perhaps sympathetic judge, this, he towas have it. in the Federal and Beyond provisions State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision the exercise of of- about ficial reluctance the life and power—a to entrust over plenary powers liberty of the citizen to one or to a . . . most judge group judges. [T]he recent and exhaustive in concluded that do study juries criminal cases understand the evidence in most of the cases and come to sound conclusions which presented to them and that when with the result at juries differ arrived, would have are some of judge they serving it is because usually Louisiana, (Duncan for very which were created.” purposes 497, 499-501].) supra, 391 U.S. 155-157 L.Ed.2d crime, proceeding subject to if com- charged is with acts which would be a incarceration (Id. adult, guarantees mitted him the trial.” at the Alaska Constitution First, This passage identifies several of the jury system. divisible benefits it protects the weak against judge who bow to from others might pressures government. Second, in it who because of protects judge biased against personal predilections Third, cannot be counted on for a fair decision.51 allows the injection community values into the decision-making process when the accused deems this to even a and preferable impartial strong judge. benefit, Duncan, A fourth not mentioned flows from the mere directly in a presence juries given case. service the com- type Jury helps keep munity involved in and about knowledgeable what is those happening proceedings.
These benefits appear have as much meaning juvenile delinquency as for proceedings adult criminal court. We have been no reason to given bench, believe the juvenile court or assignment immune from the weak biased judges. Indeed some juvenile judges to subtle form may subject of bias seldom found in adult court—the bias intentions. good
Nor do we find the common citizen’s valuable de- less when perspective ciding whether a juvenile committed a whether crime than when deciding an adult committed a instance, crime. In either fresh look jurors provide witnesses, evidence, other and the crime. This prosecutor fresh look is critical especially when feature fact proceedings repetitive pat- witnesses, terns and professional as features at least common as in adult A cases. jury also offers a wider of human range experiences values than could a no judge, matter how well-educated or well- single intentioned. These and values can be at experiences helpful least eval- uating alleged criminal behavior of a as an young adult. person Finally, opening system workings justice frequent Courts, scrutiny by juries may lead to more electorate. knowledgeable scientists, social commentators have all railed about the deficiencies (See, disappointments court movement. In re e.g., Gault, 1; Jones, 519; supra, 387 U.S. Breed v. 421 U.S. and even supra, McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, and the sources cited U.S. therein.) Yet meaningful reform and resources will not come with- adequate out we public Meantime have closed the main support. general public’s window into these on a from courts—serving hearing jury personally *51 someone who has.
The benefits a to trial in cases does not right jury juvenile delinquency depend even in a substantial upon right being every exercised trial—or might overburdened, against 51One also add to protection judge this list harried tedium of long ago may routine often have repetitious patterns. fact What become old experienced to judge newly hat intriguing empaneled jury. will be novel and to a Thus jury may well look closer at the evidence. used it will be suggests of other jurisdictions percentage. experience effect healthy can have Still the existence of this right mere sparingly.52 is exercised. the right few cases in which courts far those beyond trial is generally bare threat of a jury As one commentator observed: “[T]he honest, that the know sufficient to keep judges independent an end to jury will bring either side slightest suspicion prejudice absence, justice of the juvenile the realities waivers their court. Its demonstrate, process the judicial so the effect starkly causing has system to into a kind of sick comedy. degenerate do, therefore, accuracy insurance
“What is to juries provide nor self-serv review of fact for which neither appellate impartiality finding ” Trials, (Smith, Jury declarations of can substitute. judicial impartiality ing Court, Acorns From Specious Constitution: The Juvenile And The California 142, 150).) inOr Grow Trees (1975) A. Bar Bull. Injustice 50 L. “ Court: ‘Even where United States Supreme less emotional words of the trials, very likely to a trial jury bench the right defendants are satisfied with unfairness or prosecutorial its of making judicial serves intended purpose ” Louisiana, 145, 158 (Duncan L.Ed.2d U.S. supra, less v. likely.’ [20 491, 501]. to trial in perspective.
2. The costs
right
jury
we note evidence
As to the
about cost and inconvenience
contentions
so
nearly
disruptive
not be
exists
trial
suggesting
right
jury
may
already
At least 13 states
as some
juvenile justice system
anticipate.53
court, either by
in juvenile
trial
right
jury
allow alleged delinquents
have
jurisdictions
Several of these
statute or constitutional
interpretation.54
971-973,
pages
post.
52See
right
trial
constitutional
recognize
53Should the California
retrying
delin
cost
necessarily
impose
court would not
have to
the additional
(1968)
v. Woods
juries. In
quents
already
whose cases
had been decided without
DeStefano
2093],
refused
Supreme Court
the United States
Wyo. In of these states it is a matter Stat. most § declared the Supreme Courts of two—Alaska and New Mexico—have Nord, 27; State, (RLR Peyton v. supra, 487 constitutionally protected. P.2d states—Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oklahoma- 437 P.2d Four of these provided person juries for six court. *52 Moreover, so for done decades.55 continue to different these states operate If dispositional programs juveniles by than for adults.56 convicted a jury, a youngster is screened for in same a treatment the Cali- appropriate way fornia would committed juvenile be after a found he had a crime. judge confined, And if he is to be be in physically facility will a special juvenile not an adult prison. Thus trials do not jury inherently incompatible appear awith separate juvenile justice system.57
Two empirical studies—one in 1970 and the other in 1978—focused on these very concerns. The most of the investigators surveyed jurisdictions which already authorize in jury trials juvenile proceedings. delinquency They compiled statistical data and Neither queried juvenile judges. study the fears supports about jury fact, trials In courts. overloading juvenile are reports notable for what primarily they reveal about rarity in trials those jury jurisdictions which allow juvenile delinquents right to trial by jury. The 1970 study (Burch & The Trials Knaup. Impact Jury Upon
Administration Juvenile Justice 345) Rev. Clearinghouse re ported jury trials were in less than requested two the cases heard. percent (At 359.) Furthermore, p. a of those only quarter resulted requests actually (Id., trial by jury. at “The child is not generally detained longer for a jury trial than he would have been for a . For non-jury hearing. . . the most part judges that the responded use trials had no effect jury on rehabilitation . . programs. . results show survey that where [T]he trial is jury available statute it is seldom used and creates no burden on the juvenile court system, .... None the data collected indicates that the extension of this the remaining significantly states would affect efficiency the operation (Id., 359-360.) juvenile courts.” pp. 55Colorado, for example, guaranteed jury juvenile has trials in court since Okla homa since Virginia Michigan West since since and Texas since 1943. generally, Comparative Analysis (1980).
56See A of Juvenile Codes 57These states also had to confront and deal with which can best be classified several issues bugaboos. How can a jury peers young be tried when are too his serve, moreover, busy attending are enough knowingly school? Is a mature waive jury trial? expertise judges Won’t we appraising lose the social and psychological influencing juvenile factors crime? questions These and similar appendix dissenting opinion are answered in an Pennsylvania, 647, 671-676], McKeiver v. 403 U.S. 563-572 L.Ed.2d Briefly, can impartial be tried of adults. The waiver of requires no more maturity guilty. than the plead waiver of counsel or the decision to judge’s presumed expertise weighing psychological social and factors can still come into play where phase—after it counts—the dispositional has determined whether the juvenile actually charged committed the crime.
972 Act Justice (Note,
The The to a Under the Juvenile Right Jury 1978 study 1977, 401, 420-421) similar B 14 reported Gonz. L.Rev. Appen. The a delinquency petitions results. trials as jury percentage frequency a over in Alaska to little filed from a little over a third a ranged percent for Denver, to disposition in The time average three Colorado.58 percent for 36 The official only days. responding trials in Boston was juvenile jury in Texas, ju- a trial right jury State of with largest jurisdiction trials cases, “It is jury venile delinquency reported my personal opinion on the system.”59 cases have little impact Note, following findings study published summarizing 58The chart of the 1978 1977, Right Jury The To a 14 Gonz. L.Rev. Under the Justice Act Juvenile page 421. Wyoming W. Okla. Texas Va. State1 Alaska Colo. Mich. Mass. Mont. N.M. Statute Law2 Case 19-1- [106] A. [712] [17] §56 [119] [1220] 10- 13-14- 28A [1110] 10- 54.03 Fam. Code 49- 5/6 115.24 14- Had Since Juries [1971] [1903] [1939] [1971] [1943] [1909] [1943] [1936] [1951] Jurors No. of [12] [6] [6] [6] [12] [12] [6] [12] [12] [12] Unan. 5/6 Unan. 2/3 Unan. 10/12 Unan. Verdict Unan. Unan. Unan. Time Limit None Until Trial (Custody) None None None days [15] days [30] days [5] days [10] None None Jurisd. up Juv. Age Ct. [18] [18] [17] [17] [18] [18] [18] [17] [18] [18] Min. for Adult Ct. Transfer Age [0] [15] [15] [7] [15] Allowed Transfr. No [0] ,36%4 1.0%» .56%10 1.5%8 3.2%5 1.8%6 1.7 %7 Frequency of Jury Trials3__
As has been observed earlier in this to trial inheres right jury opinion, in the individual and its is defined what person by Englishmen enjoyed scope in The so defined is inviolate and does not 1850.60 as right to yield policy considerations. Concerns about how trials the informal- jury might disrupt and ity, speed court, non-adversarial nature of juvenile even those assuming true, were descriptions cannot defeat to constitutional trial. right jury For this right is not based on flexible like due and process notions equal protection where courts balance burdens frequently governmental against benefits in private whether to deciding declare a constitutional Instead right. to right trial jury I, article in guaranteed by section 16 is the same league as the Sixth Amendment to right counsel. counsel,
Like the
to
right
trial
is
jury
guarantee
express
specific.
It
one on a
is
rather short
list
fundamental
arbitrary
protections against
or oppressive government.
Indeed it lies at the
heart
basic compact
between individual and
which
society
is the hallmark
our democracy.
Thus the right to trial by
be
jury must
honored no matter the
or
cost
incon-
venience to government.
(Cf.
Corenevsky
Superior
(1984)
36
trials. In fact
option
another
legally
requesting jury
available.
trial could be
Juveniles
sent
to
back,
the adult
convicted,
criminal
for
court
trial then
disposition hearings
referred
if
for
juvenile
refurbished,
court. The courtrooms would not
to
juvenile
have
court schedules
judicial assignments
would not
disrupted,
have to be
like.
and the
hand,
On the other
constitutionally
would not be
to
permissible
option
offer the
nonjury trial and
juvenile
treatment
juvenile
jury
offender in
court versus
trial and
treatment as an adult
offender in criminal court. To the extent there remains
difference
offenders,
whatsoever between
juvenile
forcing
treatment accorded
convicted
adult
juvenile
accused to this
place
election would
burden on
exercise
unconstitutional
right
(United
his
to
jury.
trial
States v. Jackson
570
L.Ed.2d
U.S.
[20
88 S.Ct.
[kidnaping
permitting jury
1209]
law
no
impose
penalty
penalty
to
death
but
death
after
or guilty plea
court trial
“imposes impermissible
upon
burden
the exercise” of consti-
trial];
right
jury
tutional
to
In re Lewallen
Cal.Rptr.
If indeed are inimical to juries courts when amendment have been taken constitutional away it was followed when route was very created in California. This were first proceed compensation trial workers’ deemed desirable to eliminate *55 I, XIV, 4; v. Pendola Const., (Cal. Dominguez art. art. ings. § § amendment of this 1025].) of an 220 P. In the absence 46 Cal.App. inviolate in the nature, trial remains jury to right the offenders’ be restored. and thus should the California Constitution eyes IV. Conclusion. denial of the trial court’s affirming
We have no trouble whatsoever in denial Javier’s request motion to evidence. appellant’s suppress construe California is matter. However we entirely trial different jury a trial under jury he was entitled to juvenile delinquency proceedings, Constitution. value, the court was
If we at face take delinquency provisions on de- and that basis felony whether Javier had committed a determining so, If he should have had oppor- him to be a ward of the court. claring a minors had such tunity right for a trial 1850 England because hand, we the other if before of the court. On they could declared wards in the a cases juvenile delinquency take close look at what has happened a version action wardship is call years disingenuous past once Accordingly, or indeed other than a criminal anything prosecution. minors, as well by jury Javier A. should been trial since again granted have to in adults, in 1850 continue England—and as trial enjoyed right in criminal proceedings. California—when present day prosecuted discarded, ever, be- are if Court decisions Ordinarily previous Supreme ideas cause of altered or new societal values. social circumstances “[T]he not, sciences, whether correct or the social community (Levi, An In- win control decisions.” community, legal acceptance 501, 504.) It is for L.Rev. Reasoning troduction U.Chi. Legal to tell us when social con- Court and Supreme only Supreme have sufficiently ditions have or values matured new changed enough a new one. But that old rule adopt time has come to abandon court’s the juvenile offender’s not by jury constitutional trial question of evolving social conditions or values. It is matter of historical fact. And if this court is correct in its historical Daedler is not out analysis, merely of date or out of it was day it was filed. As a result of step; wrong error, thousands have been denied their juveniles constitutional over the past years.
We urge Court to end this of fundamental con- deprivation so, stitutional In right. we commend to the court’s doing attention the words men, of Thomas Jefferson: and exact all whatever state “Equal justice .. . and trial persuasion juries selected. These impartially principles us, form the bright constellation which gone has before our guides . . . should steps. we wander from them in moments error ... let us hasten to retrace our (Jefferson, and to First steps regain road. ...” Address, Inaugural Mar.
Disposition *56 In with compliance of stare principles decisis enunciated in Auto Equity, the judgment is affirmed. J.,
Thompson, P. concurred. Acting Although one FIELDHOUSE, J.,* Dissenting. cannot advocate the “willy nilly" distinctions, case side-stepping law by selectively there fancying occurs from time to time major distinctions which have been about brought evolution, gradually occasional, social and and these legal contemporary situations must be rescued from controlling cases lest we become seemingly enslaved Auto Equity. Certainly growth development which justice, has been ably described by majority, is shining example of one such distinction.
Obviously the is a justice. matter fundamental Contem- law is in no porary to the way comparable system addressed Daedler I court. do not in the I suggest change law. Rather advocate application tried existing, and true to a new legal completely principles and heretofore situation. unchallenged
I agree with wholeheartedly my in the (step)-brothers majority opinion with respect their But I reasoning. would reverse the and re- judgment mand for a new trial where was afforded his constitutional appellant to trial by jury.
*Assigned by the Chairperson the Judicial Council. Court was denied hearing by for a petition
Appellant’s
J.,
Bird, C.J.,
opinion
were
Reynoso,
November
1984.
be granted.
should
petition
Notes
right
jury
trial.
1. These are the ten
in which the
has a
states
minor
plenary
juveniles
jury
State,
RLR v.
2. The Alaska
held that
trial under the state constitution.
Court
have
Supreme
(1971).
Notes
[1978] (Boston) only. Administration, Office Hutcheson, Counsel, 8. Letter dated March 1978 from Jim Chief of Court Supreme (126 figure petitions). Court of Texas. The is for 1976 trials out filed 8,280 delinquency Wyoming. Judge Armstrong, Court of Coordinator, 9. Letter dated from 5, 1978, J. Reuel April 10. 217. Oklahoma, State of Report Judiciary argument, problems which People long litany 59At oral of administrative recited However, many on this juvenile proceedings. would flow from a items necessity list would juvenile jury of administrative costs and assume trials inconveniences judges juvenile delinquency have to be held the same before the other courtrooms same n 3. The meaning right. “inviolate” constitutional