In re Tanner D.

Filed 6/20/06 In re Tanner D. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel S. Lopez, Judge. Affirmed.

Laini Millar Melnick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that 12-year-old Tanner D. had committed a misdemeanor battery, declared Tanner a ward of the court, placed him at home on probation, and ordered him to pay a $50 fine. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, Pen. Code, § 242.) Tanner appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on various grounds. We affirm.

FACTS

Tanner was standing at the top of a flight of stairs in an apartment complex, using an air ball gun to shoot small plastic balls at a group of boys in the downstairs playground. As 12-year-old Maha M. walked to the playground, Tanner started firing at her. She twice told him to stop but he kept shooting, and two of the balls struck Maha, one on her right leg, the other on the right side of her neck. Maha then walked to the bottom of the stairs and again told Tanner to stop. In response, he shot another ball which hit and injured her eye.

The petition was filed, and a contested hearing was held at which Maha testified to the facts summarized above. Tanner testified in his own defense, conceded that he had fired a shot that hit Maha while she was in the playground, but insisted he had not intended to hit Maha. He said she had not told him to stop shooting at her, and that he knew it was unsafe to shoot at people who were not wearing protective gear but did not realize that someone could be hurt by one of the balls.

The juvenile court rejected Tanner's defense and sustained the petition.

DISCUSSION

In a series of related arguments, Tanner contends there is insufficient evidence that he knew his conduct was wrong, insufficient evidence of intent and, generally, insufficient evidence of battery. We disagree.

Knowledge. Because Tanner was under 14 at the time of the offense, the petition could be sustained only upon â€