Fear Not Law Articles: In re S.D.

In re S

In re S.D.

Filed 2/16/07 In re S.D. CA4/2

NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATEDISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re S.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

S.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E039479

(Super.Ct.No. SWJ001772)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of RiversideCounty. H. Dennis Myers and Martin Staven, Judges. Affirmed.

Brent Riggs, underappointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson,Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant AttorneyGeneral, Barry Carlton, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Stephanie H.Chow, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant S.D. (â€

Description	Appellant "minor" appeals from judgment of the juvenile court declaring her a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placing her on home probation after finding that she prevented a teacher from performing her duties by threatening to inflict unlawful injury in violation of Penal Code section 71. She contends that each of her communications to the teacher deserved First Amendment protection. She further contends there is insufficient evidencethat (1) she meant either of the communications as a threat, (2) she intended to affect the teacher's performance, or (3) she had the apparent ability to carry out any possible threat. Finally, she claims that because the prosecutor argued two separate incidents under one charge without electing one on which to rely, the court may have confused the evidence when it made itsfinding, thus denying her due process in defending herself. For reasons explained in this opinion, court reject each contention and affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.