In re Vanessa P.
Filed 11/5/13 In re Vanessa P. CA2/7
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
SEVEN
In re VANESSA P.,
a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile
Court Law.
B246242
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. GJ28582)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
VANESSA P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, Robin Miller Sloan, Judge. Affirmed.
Bruce G.
Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance
E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J.
Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________
Vanessa P. appeals from an order placing her on probation
without wardship after the juvenile court found she had committed misdemeanor
and sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. She contends the evidence is insufficient to
support the finding. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On the
afternoon of October 18, 2010,
Glendale Police Department Officer Alex Rolando received a radio call regarding
an assault at a park at 820 East Maple Street. When he arrived at the park, he spoke to Jessica
O. He noticed some swelling and redness
on Jessica’s face below her left eye. After
speaking with Jessica, Officer Rolando telephoned Vanessa and asked her to come
to the park. Vanessa, whom Officer
Rolando described as “rather petite,†arrived and told the officer that she and
Jessica had previously been involved in a year-long relationship and had broken
up a month earlier.
title="">[1]
After they broke up, Jessica had been
telephoning Vanessa, calling her names and saying she wished Vanessa would die.
Vanessa told Officer Rolando that she
and Jessica got into an argument at the park.
Her “emotions got the best of her,†and she struck Jessica in the face.
Officer
Rolando placed Vanessa under arrest. At
the police station, Vanessa said she felt bad about hitting Jessica and never
intended to hurt her.
Vanessa
testified that Jessica called her five or six times “throughout the day,†and
at one point Jessica, who was about two inches taller and 25 pounds heavier
than Vanessa, went to Vanessa’s house at 2:00
a.m. with a friend to fight Vanessa. On the day of the incident, Jessica was at
the park with some friends and telephoned Vanessa. Provoked by the friends’ comments, Vanessa
went to the park, intending to speak to Jessica alone and tell her to stop
calling her. When Vanessa arrived, she
asked Jessica why she kept calling her when she had told Jessica to stop. Jessica laughed, and one of her friends
walked up and threatened to hit Vanessa. Jessica stepped between them and pushed the
friend away. Jessica then took a couple
of steps towards Vanessa, until she was about three or four feet away. Believing Jessica was going to hit her, Vanessa
hit Jessica first.
After her
arrest, Vanessa expressed remorse for having hit Jessica and said “she felt bad
for striking her.†They were still friends at the time of
the hearing.
The
juvenile court found that, even if Vanessa’s testimony were credible, “it
legally doesn’t rise to the nature of self-defense.†The court acknowledged that Vanessa now
realized her action was inappropriate but stated that there still had to be
“consequences for behavior.†The court
found true the battery allegation,
sustained the petition, and placed Vanessa on six months of probation under
certain terms and conditions. Vanessa timely
appealed. (See In re Do Kyung K. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 583, 587-590 [juvenile may
appeal order placing him or her on probation without wardship pursuant to Welfare
and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a)].)
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
“The same standard governs our review of
the sufficiency of evidence in juvenile cases as in adult criminal cases: ‘[W]e review the whole record to determine
whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime or special circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The record must disclose substantial evidence
to support the verdict—i.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of
solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]
In applying this test, we review the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the
judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced
from the evidence. [Citation.] “Conflicts and even testimony [that] is
subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for
it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the
credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a
determination depends. [Citation.] We resolve neither credibility issues nor
evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence. [Citation.]†[Citation.] A reversal for insufficient evidence “is
unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there
sufficient substantial evidence to support’†the jury’s verdict.’†(In re Christopher F. (2011) 194
Cal.App.4th 462, 471, fn. 6, quoting People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th
327, 357; see In re George T. (2004)
33 Cal.4th 620, 630-631; In re Brandon T. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th
1491, 1495-1496.)
B. The
Juvenile Court’s Finding Vanessa Committed Battery Is Supported By
Substantial Evidence
Penal Code
section 243, subdivision (e)(1), makes it a crime to commit a battery against a
person with whom the defendant previously had a dating relationship. “A battery is any willful and unlawful use of
force or violence upon the person of another.†(Id.,
§ 242.) Any “‘harmful or offensive
touching constitutes an unlawful use of force or violence’ and thus a battery . . . .†(People
v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 961, disapproved on another ground in
405, 459; see People v. Moore (2011)
51 Cal.4th 1104, 1136; James v. State of
California (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1270.) Vanessa does not challenge the finding that she
struck Jessica in the face, but contends that she acted in self-defense.
“[A] defendant acts
in lawful self-defense if ‘one, the defendant reasonably believed that he [or
she] was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury . . . or was
in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully; two, the defendant reasonably
believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that
danger; and three, the defendant used no more force than was reasonably
necessary to defend himself [or herself] against that danger.’†(People
v. Clark (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 235, 250, quoting CALCRIM No.
3470.) “[T]he defendant must actually
and reasonably believe in the need to defend†(People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082; see
50, 72), and must have acted in actual fear of imminent danger to life or great
bodily injury (People v. Stitely
(2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 551). The defense
“‘is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances.’â€
(People
v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1065.)
The People have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the
defendant’s use of force was not in lawful self-defense. (People
v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 1028; CALCRIM Nos. 960, 3470.)
Substantial
evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Vanessa committed battery
and did not act in self-defense. Vanessa
went to the park in order to confront Jessica.
Vanessa challenged Jessica about the harassment
and struck her in anger while they were arguing. Although Vanessa testified that she hit
Jessica because she thought Jessica was going to hit her first, there is substantial
evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that Vanessa did not actually
and reasonably believe that an attack was imminent. Jessica had already pushed away the friend who
had threatened to hit Vanessa. Moreover,
while Vanessa testified that Jessica took a couple of steps toward Vanessa, she
acknowledged that Jessica stopped three or four feet away. At that point, there was no imminent danger
that Jessica would hit Vanessa. Finally,
Vanessa admitted to Officer Rolando that her “emotions got the best of her,â€
and she never told the officer that she felt threatened.
Vanessa’s argument
that the evidence shows she acted in self-defense is essentially a request that
we reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the trier of
fact. This is not the function of a
reviewing court. (See
Cal.4th 254, 295; People v. Xiong
(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1259, 1268.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
SEGAL,
J.
We concur:
PERLUSS,
P. J.
ZELON,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Vanessa testified that she and Jessica had
been “together for about 2 years almost and we broke up about a month before
the incident.â€
name="_ftn2" title="">* Judge
of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
