In re David H
Filed 4/24/06 In re David H. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977 .
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| In re DAVID H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| KEVIN C., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVID H., Defendant and Respondent. | A109026, A110426 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. J040031) |
On August 13, 2003, plaintiff Kevin C. was convicted of attempted murder and related offenses, convictions which we affirmed in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Craig (Apr. 11, 2005, A104037.) The primary evidence supporting the convictions was the victim's identification of Kevin C. as the man who shot him. (Id. at pp. 2-3.) The defense was that the victim, David H., identified the wrong person. Kevin C.'s stepfather testified that Kevin C. had been home at the time the crime was committed. (Id. at p. 4.) Defense counsel suggested that David H. knew the man who shot him, but named defendant because he was afraid of the people who actually were involved. (Id. at p. 6.)
During the course of those proceedings, the prosecutor informed the court and defense counsel that David H. had a criminal history. As that history was contained in juvenile court records, it could be reviewed only by court order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 827.) Counsel never sought or obtained such an order. After the conviction, and during the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff, represented by new counsel, filed a petition in the juvenile court seeking disclosure of any and all portions of David H.'s juvenile court records suggesting he had engaged in conduct of moral turpitude, asserting that those records could have been used to impeach him at trial. On November 8, 2004, the juvenile court, following an in camera review of the records, found good cause to produce two documents: An April 10, 1996 minute order finding David H. committed vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851), and two pages from a January 1993 police report implicating David H. in the burglary of a classroom. On January 6, 2005, plaintiff appealed from the order on his petition to the extent it denied disclosure of any additional records.
In the meantime, on December 29, 2004, defense counsel filed a second petition seeking disclosure of juvenile records, asserting that the court may not have construed the original petition as broadly as counsel intended it to be construed. Counsel explained: â€
