1

Filed 8/18/14 In re G.V. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

In re G.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

C073998

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. 69818)

Minor G.V. (the minor) was charged with felony battery on a peace officer with 

injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (c)(2)),

1 and misdemeanor resisting, delaying, or 

obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). He was also charged with battery 

___________________________________________________________________

1

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

(§ 242) against Serena S. Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court 

sustained the felony battery and resisting charges, but not the misdemeanor battery 

charge. The court adjudged the minor a ward, and ordered him to serve 38 days in the 

Juvenile Justice Center with 38 days of credit, ordered 53 days of electronic monitoring, 

and placed him on probation in his mother’s custody. 

On appeal, the minor, who was 13 at the time he committed the offenses, contends 

there is insufficient evidence that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct (§ 26). 

Disagreeing, we shall affirm.

FACTS

The minor was born in November 1999. 

On February 27, 2013, the minor approached Serena S. and slapped her on the 

face with an open hand after he told her that he wanted his hat back; she did not have his 

hat. Serena S. told her father about the incident, and officers later arrived at the scene. 

Lodi Police Officer Josh Redding contacted the minor and explained it had been reported 

that the minor had hit a girl because she had a hat. Redding arrested the minor after he 

admitted striking Serena S. The minor was subsequently transported to the police station 

by another officer. 

On April 2, 2013, Lodi Police Officers Eric Shaw and Erica Urrea were sent to the 

minor’s residence after the minor’s mother called for them. The officers went to the front 

door of the apartment, where they contacted the minor and his mother. 

The minor was sitting on the stairs immediately inside the front door. Officer 

Shaw told the minor he shouldn’t be using drugs, shouldn’t bring drugs into his mother’s 

house, and he should respect his mother. The minor stood up and said, “You fucking pig, 

fucking motherfucker.” Shaw told the minor it was not right to speak to him that way, 

and instructed him to sit down. The minor complied and Shaw kept talking to him. 

As Shaw continued talking to him, the minor seemed distant and was playing with 

a bag of chips. At one point, the minor quickly lunged up from his seated position to 
3

within a foot of Shaw. As the minor started to raise his hands, Shaw placed his hands on

the minor’s chest and pushed him backwards, causing him to fall back on the stairs. The 

minor immediately sprang up and punched the left side of Shaw’s face with a closed fist. 

Shaw put the minor in an arm bar control hold and took him to the ground; he was 

eventually arrested. Shaw sustained several small cuts on the inside of his mouth and 

bruising on his left cheekbone as a result of the attack. 

Officer Urrea was talking to the minor’s mother, so her view of the incident was 

restricted. She saw Shaw push the minor and the minor strike Shaw. She transported the 

minor to the hospital after his arrest. At the hospital, she asked the minor why he hit 

Shaw. The minor said, “He pushed me, of course I’m going to punch him back.” He 

admitted that if someone got in his face he would strike the person. Urrea told him “due 

to his youth” that getting into an officer’s face can be seen as threatening. 

The minor’s mother testified that she called the police to her residence so they 

could talk to the minor about not being violent. The minor had called her a “bitch” and 

grabbed her hands. She saw Shaw giving advice to the minor, the minor getting up, 

Shaw pushing him, and the minor striking Shaw in the face. 

DISCUSSION

The minor contends there is insufficient evidence that he appreciated the wrongful 

nature of his conduct as required by section 26. We disagree.

Section 26 provides: “All persons are capable of committing crimes except those 

belonging to the following classes: [¶] One—Children under the age of 14, in the 

absence of clear proof that at the time of committing the act charged against them, they 

knew its wrongfulness.” 

“Clear proof” means clear and convincing evidence. (In re Manuel L. (1994) 

7 Cal.4th 229, 233-234, 239.) “On appeal, we must review the whole record in the light 

most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s findings that the minor 

understood the wrongfulness of his conduct if they are supported by ‘substantial 
4

evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a 

reasonable trier of fact could have made the requisite finding under the governing 

standard of proof.’ ” (In re James B. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 862, 872.) 

“In determining whether the minor knows of the wrongfulness of his conduct, the 

court must often rely on circumstantial evidence such as the minor’s age, experience, and 

understanding, as well as the circumstances of the offense, including its method of 

commission and concealment. [Citations.] Generally, the older a child gets and the 

closer he approaches the age of 14, the more likely it is that he appreciates the 

wrongfulness of his acts.” (In re James B., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at pp. 872-873.) 

The juvenile court found the minor was arrested by a uniformed officer after 

slapping Serena S. at age 13-and-one-half years. Only several weeks later, officers were 

called to the minor’s home because of mother’s concern regarding his behavior towards 

her, including cursing and manhandling her. Shaw told the minor that conduct was 

inappropriate. Only then did the minor lunge at Shaw without provocation, and when 

Shaw pushed him back the minor stood up and punched him in the face. Based on these 

facts and the other facts adduced at trial, the juvenile court found there was clear and 

convincing evidence that the minor understood the wrongfulness of his conduct in 

punching and resisting Shaw.2

The minor challenges the juvenile court’s factual findings and its legal conclusion. 

He asserts there is no indication anyone told him of the wrongfulness of his conduct 

regarding Serena S., and that while he was arrested following the incident, no action was 

taken on the arrest until the incident with Shaw. He disputes the court’s finding that the 

officers spoke to him about improper physical contact with his mother in the April 4, 

___________________________________________________________________

2

 The trial court did not sustain the allegation that the minor committed battery against 

Serena S., finding there was not clear and convincing evidence that he understood the 

wrongfulness of his actions in that incident. 
5

2013 incident. The minor argues that the fact that his mother called the police about 

improper physical contact with her is evidence that he did not understand that it was 

wrong to use force. He notes the mother’s testimony that Shaw goaded the minor to get 

up off the steps “if he was a real man” before the minor initially lunged at him. The 

minor concludes “[t]hat there is no evidence to suggest that he appreciated or understood 

the distinction between [Shaw’s] conduct and his own.” Finally, the minor argues his 

conversation at the hospital with Urrea (where she told him officers were threatened by 

people lunging toward them without provocation) shows that he did not understand the 

wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of his attack on Shaw. 

As we explained ante, on appeal we must make every reasonable inference in 

support of the judgment. Shaw testified that he was speaking to the minor about drugs 

and respecting his mother when the minor first lunged at him. The juvenile court did not 

have to accept testimony to the contrary, particularly given that the minor’s mother 

admitted she had trouble understanding English. The juvenile court could reasonably 

conclude that the minor’s lunge and strike at Shaw were unprovoked. 

Further, the minor’s relatively advanced age and arrest for his attack on Serena S. 

is evidence that the minor knew hitting others was wrong. He admitted to Urrea that he

intentionally responded with force because Shaw pushed him away. Substantial evidence 

supports the finding that the minor understood the wrongfulness of his conduct.
6

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 DUARTE , J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

 ROBIE , J.