Error and/or relief
The juvenile court’s review of the probation report and relation motions before determining jurisdiction was prejudicial error and merits reversal.
First Holding:
The history of section 701 indicates that the Legislature intended to create a bifurcated juvenile court procedure in which the court would first determine whether the facts of the case would support the jurisdiction of the court in declaring wardship and thereafter would consider the social study report at a hearing on the appropriate disposition of that ward. The primary purpose of the jurisdictional hearing “is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to declare the minor a ward of the juvenile court. If the court finds that the minor is a person described in section 602, the court must determine whether the minor’s offense would be a misdemeanor or a felony if committed by an adult. The court then proceeds to hold a disposition hearing.
Authority:
WIC 701
In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855, 859
In re P.A. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 31–32
Second Holding:
At the jurisdictional hearing, the admission and exclusion of evidence shall be pursuant to the rules of evidence established by the Evidence Code and by judicial decision. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt supported by evidence, legally admissible in the trial of criminal cases, must be adduced to support a finding that the minor is a person described by [Welfare & Institutions Code] [s]ection 602. Rule 5.780(c) further provides that the juvenile court must not read or consider any portion of a probation report relating to the contested petition before or during a contested jurisdiction hearing.
Authority:
WIC 701
Rules of Court, rule 5.780(c)
Third Holding:
The juvenile court’s erroneous consideration of a probation report before determining jurisdiction is reviewed for harmless error under Watson. Under that standard, we determine whether it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.
Authority:
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836
Fourth Holding:
An objection is sufficient if it fairly apprises the trial court of the issue it is being called upon to decide. In a criminal case, the objection will be deemed preserved if, despite inadequate phrasing, the record shows that the court understood the issue presented. In any event, to the extent the court did not understand the issue based on its colloquy with counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits.
Authority:
People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 290
People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]
Fifth Holding:
Invited error bars a claim on appeal when a defendant, for tactical reasons, makes a request acceded to by the trial court and claims on appeal that the court erred in granting the request.
Authority:
People v. Russell (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1228, 1250
Sixth Holding:
If the jurisdictional facts presented at the hearing are far from conclusive, the juvenile court’s review of the probation report prior to determining jurisdiction constitutes prejudicial error. Thus, if the determination of jurisdiction is made by closely balanced evidence, reversal is proper.
Authority:
In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855, 862
In re James B. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 862, 875