Other Cases Affecting Children

In re Jorge M. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 866 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 466]. Supreme Court of California.

The juvenile court adjudicated a child a ward of the court and ordered the child into a juvenile camp program for violating Penal Code section 12280(b) (possession of an assault weapon). Law enforcement officers had conducted a probation investigation when the child was on in-home probation for possession of a controlled substance. One of the officers had asked where the child kept his possessions and subsequently found three rifles on the child's bed and an unregistered semiautomatic rifle with a "banana clip" magazine on a shelf near the bed. The juvenile court found the allegations in the wardship petition to be true at the adjudication hearing and placed the child in a camp community placement for a period not to exceed three years and eight months. The Court of Appeal reversed the assault weapons charge, holding that there was a lack of proof that the child "knew that the weapon possessed characteristics which brought it within the statutory definition of an assault weapon" as defined by the Assault Weapons Control Act (ACWA) (Pen. Code, §§ 12275-12290), as well as insufficient proof of the mental element under section 12280(b). The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme court assessed whether section 12280(b) constituted a public welfare offense that does not require proof of scienter. The Supreme Court determined that section 12280(b) was not a strict liability offense after assessing the statute's history, the general provision of mens rea, the severity of punishment, the seriousness of harm to the public, the difficulty in ascertaining the facts, the difficulty in proving mental state, and the number of expected prosecutions. However, because of the gravity of public safety addressed in ACWA , the substantial number of expected prosecutions, and the difficulty of proving actual knowledge, the Supreme Court indicated that the section was not intended to contain an "actual knowledge" element. The prosecution must prove that the person charged with possessing an unregistered assault weapon "knew or should have known the characteristics of the weapon bringing it within the registration requirements of ACWA." In this case, because the magazine was detachable and there was an indication of the type of weapon near the magazine's center, there had been sufficient evidence that the child knew or should have known that the gun had the characteristics of an assault weapon. Justice Kennard dissented in the opinion, stating that she agreed with the appellate court that an element of the offense was actual knowledge and that the prosecution in this case did not prove this element.