Error and/or relief
No substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order sustaining allegations relating to property theft. The minor came into the store with two adult males. One of the adults asked the clerk to bring him clothes that matched shoes he had previously purchased. The group took six items into a fitting room. Subsequently, one of the adults asked the clerk for different sizes and she went to the back of the store to get them. When she returned to the fitting room, only the two adults were there. The clerk did not see the minor leave. Security camera footage showed the minor leaving the store about five minutes after the group had entered the fitting room. Shortly thereafter, the two adults came out of the fitting room, returned five items to the clerk, and left. The sixth item, a green sweater, was missing from the store.
The possibility that the minor stole the sweater or otherwise aided and abetted the theft is insufficient. Accordingly, no substantial evidence supports the true findings.
First Holding:
Our review of the minors’ substantial evidence claim is governed by the same standard applicable to adult criminal cases. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evidence that merely raises a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt is not sufficient to support a conviction. Suspicion is not evidence, it merely raises a possibility, and this is not a sufficient basis for an inference of fact. The substantial evidence rule mandates consideration of the weight of the evidence before deferring to the conclusions drawn from the evidence by the trier of fact.
In determining whether the record is sufficient the appellate court can give credit only to substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value. Mere conjecture, surmise, or suspicion is not the equivalent of reasonable inference and does not constitute proof.
Authority:
In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026
People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307-308
Second Holding:
An aider and abettor is one who acts with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense.
Authority:
People v. Smith (2014) 60 Cal.4th 603, 611
Third Holding:
The possibility that the minor stole the sweater or otherwise aided and abetted the theft is insufficient. Accordingly, no substantial evidence supports the true findings.
Authority:
People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307
In re Leanna W. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 735, 741, 744 [where liquor was missing and property was damaged after the minor hosted a party at her grandmother’s home while her grandmother was away, no substantial evidence supported burglary and vandalism findings because the fact that the minor was present when the liquor was used does not show that she actually consumed it, much less that she had the specific intent to take it when she entered the house and there is no evidence that the minor was the person who damaged or destroyed the property]