Delinquency Case Law

In re Samuel J. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 130 [112 Cal.Rptr.2d 831]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5.

The juvenile court revoked a child's probation and committed him to the California Youth Authority (CYA).

Over a period of six years, the child was found to have violated numerous Penal Code sections. The juvenile court committed the child to an out-of-home placement, and five weeks later the probation department filed a motion to revoke probation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777. The court permitted a probation officer to testify (based on statements made to her by other staff members) that the child had broken a window and assaulted a staff member. This hearsay testimony constituted the prosecution's entire case. The child admitted to the alleged conduct. The juvenile court found the allegations to be true and committed him to CYA. The child appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the juvenile court. Proposition 21 had amended section 777(c) to lessen the burden of proof and present a more flexible hearsay standard. Section 777(c) provides that the court may admit and consider reliable hearsay evidence to the same extent that such evidence would be admissible in an adult probation revocation hearing. In this case, however, the prosecution made no showing that the witnesses to the violation were unavailable or that good cause existed for the failure to present them. Thus, the juvenile court's admission of the probation officer's testimony constituted a violation of the child's federal due process rights and of section 777(c). (See People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144.) The appellate court determined that the admission of the hearsay testimony was not harmless error. The appellate court stated that all of the prosecution's evidence was inadmissible and reversed the judgment of the juvenile court.