Filed 9/16/24 In re N.G. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re N.G., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

2d Juv. No. B327166

(Super. Ct. No. PJ53919)

(Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.G.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

N.G. challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional order 

committing him to the Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF)

for a baseline confinement term of seven years after finding true 
2

the allegation that he committed second degree murder. (Pen. 

Code, §§ 187, 189; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.)1 

Appellant contends: (1) the juvenile court abused its 

discretion and violated his right to confrontation when it 

prohibited defense counsel from cross-examining a witness about 

prior uncharged conduct, (2) the matter should be remanded for 

the juvenile court to reconsider the baseline term in accordance 

with new law, and (3) this court should conduct an independent 

review of the confidential files reviewed by the juvenile court 

following the grant of appellant’s Pitchess motion to determine 

whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in deciding what 

complaints were discoverable. 

We remand the case so the juvenile court may exercise its 

discretion whether to impose a lesser baseline term. In all other 

respects, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural Background

In August 2021, at approximately 11:30 p.m., police officers 

heard a gunshot near Sepulveda Boulevard and Superior Street. 

They drove to the location and found a white Toyota Corolla in 

the middle of the street. The vehicle had a bullet hole in the rear 

driver’s side window. The driver, later identified as C.R., 

suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the back of his head. Inside 

the vehicle, officers found cell phones and a plastic bag that 

contained marijuana. Officers also found a shell casing from a 9-

millimeter bullet located approximately 36 feet away from the 

vehicle. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
3

Surveillance video from the scene showed an individual in a 

white hoodie approaching the victim’s vehicle. As the vehicle 

began to drive away, there was a visible muzzle flash, the vehicle 

lurched to a stop, and the individual in the hoodie ran away. 

Additional video recovered from an apartment building 

near the shooting showed a young man running with a gun, 

hopping a fence, tucking a sweatshirt under a car, and then 

returning to the car. 

When officers searched the car, a Dodge Magnum, they 

found a white hoodie with a handgun wrapped inside. The gun 

was loaded with several rounds in the magazine and had an 

empty cartridge in the chamber that had failed to eject properly. 

Officers also found a plastic bag that contained marijuana, as 

well as paperwork indicating the vehicle belonged to appellant’s 

mother. 

Appellant was arrested in another state pursuant to a 

warrant for his arrest. 

Contested Jurisdictional Hearing

At the contested jurisdictional hearing, the People 

presented evidence including surveillance video, witness

testimony, and other items of evidence indicating appellant was 

the shooter. 

The victim’s friend, D.J., testified after he was granted 

immunity. On the day of the shooting, D.J., C.R., and another 

friend, Frankie, were hanging out at Frankie’s house. They were 

all drinking alcohol. D.J. recalled he drank three or four beers 

and had some marijuana. After several hours, they decided to 

buy more marijuana. 
4

C.R. drove, while D.J. sat in the front seat, and another 

friend, J.P.,

2 sat in the backseat. When they arrived at the 

location of Superior Street near Sepulveda Boulevard, C.R. 

stopped his vehicle, and an individual wearing a hoodie 

approached the driver’s side window. D.J. testified that a drug 

transaction occurred between C.R. and the individual in the 

hoodie, but D.J. did not hear their conversation.

D.J. heard a gunshot and the vehicle went forward about a 

foot then stopped. D.J. noticed C.R. was bleeding, not moving, 

and had a bullet wound to his head. D.J. attempted to reach over 

C.R. and drive the vehicle but it would not move. Both he and 

J.P. exited the vehicle and fled the scene. 

Angela Bittbauer, a criminalist for the Los Angeles Police 

Department, analyzed DNA seized from the pistol and the

sweatshirt and compared it to a DNA sample from appellant. 

The DNA from the pistol was deemed unusable but DNA from 

the sweatshirt matched appellant’s DNA. 

The parties stipulated, among other things, that the seized 

semi-automatic pistol fired the casing recovered at the scene, 

C.R. died from a gunshot wound to the head, and cellular 

telephone records placed appellant in the area at the time of the 

murder. 

After listening to testimony and considering all of the 

evidence presented, including testimony from the defense expert 

on adolescent brain development, the juvenile court sustained the 

petition. 

After a contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court 

ordered appellant committed to SYTF for a baseline confinement 

term of seven years. The juvenile court further set appellant’s 

2 J.P. was also granted immunity but he refused to testify. 
5

maximum confinement time as life, but with the limitation that 

the actual confinement time in SYTF not exceed appellant 

turning 25 years of age.

Prior Uncharged Conduct

Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion 

and violated his right to confrontation when it prohibited him 

from cross-examining D.J. about his prior uncharged conduct. 

The trial court has broad discretion in determining the 

relevance of evidence. (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 

337.) “A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is 

reviewable for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 

Cal.4th 264, 292.)

Here, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in 

ruling that cross-examination about D.J.’s arrest for carjacking 

was not relevant, particularly given that D.J. was granted 

immunity for his testimony. Thus, he had no reason to believe 

that any unfavorable testimony to the prosecution would result in 

adverse consequences for him. 

Moreover, there was no confrontation clause violation. 

“Although the right of confrontation includes the right to crossexamine adverse witnesses on matters reflecting on their 

credibility, ‘trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the 

Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on 

such cross-examination.’” (People v. Quartermain (1997) 16 

Cal.4th 600, 623 (Quartermain), quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall

(1986) 475 U.S. 673, 679.)

“A trial court’s limitation on cross-examination pertaining 

to the credibility of a witness does not violate the confrontation 

clause unless a reasonable jury might have received a 
6

significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility had 

the excluded cross-examination been permitted.” (Quartermain, 

supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 623-624; People v. Williams (2016) 1 

Cal.5th 1166, 1192.)

Here, there was other evidence by which D.J.’s credibility 

could have been impeached, including his admission to using 

drugs and his plan to purchase more drugs on the night C.R. was 

murdered. A reasonable trier of fact would not have received a 

significantly different impression of D.J.’s credibility had he been 

cross-examined about his unrelated arrest for carjacking. 

Appellant rejects this conclusion and contends that if D.J. 

were confronted with questions about the carjacking, and 

especially if he admitted the violent conduct, his credibility would 

have been “seriously undermined in a way that his admission 

about consuming drugs did not come close to accomplishing.”

Even if we were to conclude that the juvenile court’s ruling 

regarding cross-examination of D.J.’s prior uncharged conduct 

was error, the error is harmless under any standard in view of

the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt in this case. (See 

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18; People v. Watson

(1956) 46 Cal.2d 818.)

Baseline Term of Confinement

Appellant next contends the matter should be remanded to 

permit the juvenile court to exercise its discretion to impose a 

lesser baseline term in light of California Rules of Court, rule 

5.806(d), which became effective after the dispositional hearing. 

The People agree. 

Effective July 1, 2023, the baseline confinement term for 

second degree murder was modified from seven years to a range 

of four to seven years. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.806(d)
7

[setting forth offense-based classification matrix].) However, at 

the time of the dispositional hearing in June 2023, the Judicial 

Council had not yet adopted a matrix of offense-based 

classifications. Thus, in accordance with the applicable 

guidelines in place at the time, the juvenile court ordered 

appellant committed to a baseline confinement term of seven 

years. (See § 875, subds. (b)(1), (h)(1); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, § 

30807.) 

Because appellant’s judgment was not yet final as of July 

2023, and rule 5.806 grants trial courts discretion to possibly 

ameliorate punishment, he is entitled to have the juvenile court 

reconsider his baseline term. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 5.806(d); 

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299.)

Pitchess Motion3

Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a motion for “Discovery 

of Brady Information” in the personnel records of five Los 

Angeles police officers involved in the investigation. The juvenile 

court granted a portion of the motion. After conducting an in 

camera review of the files, the juvenile court ordered discovery

but did not specify on the record what discovery was ordered.

Appellant asks us to independently review the confidential 

files reviewed by the trial court following the grant of his Pitchess

motion to determine whether the juvenile court abused its 

discretion in deciding what complaints were discoverable. The 

People agree that we need only review the juvenile courts in 

camera transcripts to determine whether the juvenile court 

properly exercised its discretion.

The sealed record at issue here includes a full transcript of 

the in camera hearing, but not the actual personnel files that 

3 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).
8

formed the basis of the juvenile court’s ruling. Our Supreme 

Court has determined that, in the context of a Pitchess motion, 

meaningful appellate review can be accomplished by examining 

the sealed transcript of the trial court’s in camera review 

proceedings to determine if the trial court adequately fulfilled its 

function. (People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1209; People v. 

Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229.) 

Based on our review of the sealed transcript, we conclude 

the juvenile court followed proper Pitchess procedures and did not 

erroneously withhold any information. 

Disposition

The matter is remanded for the limited purpose of allowing 

the juvenile court to reconsider appellant’s baseline confinement

term pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 5.806(d). In all 

other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

We concur:

BALTODANO, J.

CODY, J.
Susan Ser, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Elana Goldstein, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising 

Deputy Attorney General, and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney 

General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.