Filed 2/23/16 In re Rachel B. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re RACHEL B., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RACHEL B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D068060

 (Super. Ct. No. JCM236275)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder 

A. Willis, Judge. Affirmed.

Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Seth M. 

Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

A San Diego County social host ordinance imposes criminal penalties for "a 

person to fail to take reasonable steps to prevent a minor from consuming an alcoholic 

beverage at a party the person hosts or allows on private property the person owns or 

controls." (San Diego County Code, § 32.303, subd. (a).)1 A juvenile court found 17-

year-old Rachel B. violated this ordinance when she hosted a party at which numerous 

minors consumed alcoholic beverages. The court placed Rachel on six months' probation 

without wardship and ordered her to pay victim restitution. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725, 

subd. (a).) 

On appeal, Rachel does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support 

that she hosted a party at which she failed to take reasonable steps to prevent minors from 

consuming alcohol. Instead, her sole contention is that the court misunderstood the 

applicable law and applied an incorrect "strict liability" standard. We reject this 

contention. The record reflects the court applied the correct standard. We thus affirm the 

judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The People filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, 

alleging Rachel violated section 32.303 by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent 

minors from consuming alcohol at a party she hosted. At the adjudication hearing, the 

prosecution presented the following evidence supporting the petition. 

 

1 All unspecified section references are to the San Diego County Code. 
3

In June 2014, Rachel contacted Amy Hauer to inquire about Hauer's Internet 

advertisement offering to rent her home in Ramona. The house is located in a secluded 

area set back from the public road. Rachel said she was 25 years old and was interested 

in renting the house for a retreat for her and a few of her female cousins. During their 

conversation, Rachel asked Hauer about the privacy of the house and rental insurance. 

Hauer agreed to rent the home to Rachel. Rachel created an account with a "fake" name 

to pay Hauer the rental fee. 

Unbeknownst to Hauer, the true reason Rachel rented the house was to host a 16th 

birthday party for her friend Rya. Rachel expected to host approximately 30 friends, both 

male and female. She hired two young men, possibly around the age of 21, to work as

"bouncers."

The party started at approximately 6:00 p.m. At that time, alcohol was freely 

available for Rachel's underage guests. Rachel required each person to pay the bouncers 

a $20 entry fee to help reimburse her for the party's cost. Inside, a DJ played loud music. 

During the first hour, there were about 10 to 50 minors at the party and alcohol was 

available. 

At approximately 8:30 p.m., the sheriff's department received a noise complaint 

about the party. When two officers arrived and entered the house, they saw an estimated 

200 people, most of whom were minors. The officers observed red plastic cups, empty 

cases of alcohol, beer cans, beer bottles, and two kegs scattered about the property. A 

majority of the minors had been drinking alcoholic beverages. 
4

When the two officers started evacuating the juveniles, many of them ran up the 

hill into the neighborhood, causing the officers to call for backup assistance. It took nine 

law enforcement officers and a helicopter approximately six hours to shut down the party. 

When Hauer and her boyfriend returned to their home, they found property 

damage valued at about $4,000 or $5,000. Hauer immediately contacted Rachel to ask 

what had happened. Rachel first stated she was unaware of any damage, but then 

claimed that boys had shown up and caused trouble. 

Rachel later admitted to law enforcement that she knew there was alcohol at the 

party. She told the officers that she hired the bouncers to control who attended the party 

and handle any problems that may arise. She denied knowing who supplied the alcohol, 

but stated she suspected the bouncers may have brought the kegs. She said these men 

had previously attended a local high school, but she had no contact information and did 

not know their last names. 

Rachel did not testify at the hearing. The defense theory was that Rachel did not 

"anticipate[]" that 200 people would come to the party and bring alcohol, and she took all 

"reasonable steps" to ensure a small intimate party, including hiring bouncers. In 

support, two of Rachel's friends testified that about one hour after the party started, more 

than 100 people showed up after someone posted the party's address on social media. All 

of these people were friends of Rya, not Rachel, and many of them brought alcohol. 

Rachel's friends said that Rachel took alcohol away from some of these uninvited guests 

and asked them to leave, but they refused to do so. According to her friends, Rachel did 
5

not want alcohol at the party. They testified that when Rachel became frustrated that the 

party had become chaotic, Rachel retreated to an upstairs balcony. Rachel then went to a 

nearby gas station while law enforcement cleared people out of the house and area. 

In his closing argument, defense counsel argued that Rachel intended to host a 

party only for a few close friends, and she took reasonable steps to prevent alcohol 

consumption by "hir[ing] bouncers . . . to keep people out"; taking "alcohol away from 

individuals [who] looked too young"; and attempting "to kick people out of the party." 

Counsel asserted that the fact Rachel lost control of the party was insufficient to establish 

a violation of section 32.303 because the ordinance imposed a criminal negligence 

standard, and not strict liability. 

In his reply argument, the prosecutor agreed "[t]his is not a strict liability statute." 

But he argued Rachel violated the ordinance because she was "clearly in control of this 

private property" and she "clearly failed to . . . take reasonable steps" to prevent the 

underage partygoers from drinking alcohol at the party. The prosecutor noted that Rachel 

did not call for help when the party got out of control and her unsuccessful attempt to 

take "beer bottles or drinks from a few minors" was not a reasonable way of addressing 

the situation. 

After considering the evidence and arguments, the juvenile court concluded the 

prosecution proved its case "beyond a reasonable doubt" and made a true finding that 

Rachel had violated section 32.303. In explaining its reasoning, the court stated in part: 

"The facts are really clear. . . . You, at the behest of a friend, agreed 

to plan and host a party. You took the effort to rent property, having 
6

contact with a property owner and . . . paid for the rental of that 

property and the party took place . . . . And when the law 

enforcement . . . got there they found . . . a lot of minors . . . alcohol, 

visibly present at the party, alcohol being consumed at the party. . . .

"The statute states in part that a person who owns or has control of 

private property and knowingly hosts or allows a party on the 

property shall take all reasonable steps to prevent the consumption 

of any alcoholic beverages at the party. You had control because 

you were the person that rented the property and planned the party. 

". . . And the law requires you at that point and time to take all 

reasonable steps to prevent the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

"Reasonable steps, according to the statutes include but are not[] 

limited to controlling access to alcoholic beverages, controlling 

quantity of alcohol, verifying age of participants at the party. And 

supervising activity of the minors. I think for some reason it caught 

my attention . . . you hired two bouncers . . . . Two older guys that 

you knew from [a high school] to act as bouncers to help control 

people and activity at the party. That to me is a very important fact 

because that shows an understanding and appreciation of what could 

have happened and what, in fact, did happen. You wanted to have 

some people there that you thought you could trust or could act to 

keep it from getting out of control. They become your agents at that 

point. If they fail to act by controlling access or they bring alcohol 

or they don't limit the alcohol or kick people out or control the 

activity, that lack thereof, that failure is attributed to you because 

you hired them for that specific purpose. . . . The facts are that you 

sat despondent on a balcony once you realized this was crazy and 

out of control. You probably acted in good faith in wanting a party, 

you had two bouncers there just in case somebody got out of control; 

it went certainly beyond that. Your effort to control the party falls 

short of what is required by law. Especially when you are aware of 

that and that is evidenced by hiring [the two young men] to act as 

bouncers. Your steps were not reasonable in light of the 

circumstance as presented to this court. . . . "
7

DISCUSSION

I. Applicable Law

Section 32.303, subdivision (a) states: "A person who owns or has control of 

private property and knowingly hosts or allows a party on the property shall take all 

reasonable steps to prevent the consumption of alcoholic beverages by any minor at the 

party. Reasonable steps include, but are not limited to: (1) controlling access to 

alcoholic beverages, (2) controlling the quantity of alcoholic beverages, (3) verifying the 

age of each person attending the party by inspecting each person's driver's license or 

other government-issued identification card and (4) supervising the activities of minors at 

the party. It is unlawful for a person to fail to take reasonable steps to prevent a minor 

from consuming an alcoholic beverage at a party the person hosts or allows on private 

property the person owns or controls." 

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors (Board) enacted this ordinance to 

prevent public health and safety problems resulting from underage alcohol use, including 

"physical altercations, violent crimes including rape and other sexual offenses, accidental 

injury, neighborhood vandalism and excessive noise disturbance, all of which may 

require intervention by local law enforcement." (§ 32.301, subd. (b).) The Board found 

the ordinance would "deter consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors by holding 

persons responsible who encourage, are aware of or should be aware of the illegal 

consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors, but fail to prevent it." (§ 32.301, subd. 

(d).) A person who violates this section is "subject to criminal prosecution." (§ 32.307.) 
8

II. Analysis

A. Court Applied Correct Standard

Rachel contends the court erred by imposing a strict liability standard in 

evaluating her criminal responsibility under section 32.303, instead of the criminal 

negligence rule applicable to a statute that requires a person to take reasonable 

affirmative actions. 

"The duty to act 'reasonably' reflects the applicability of the [criminal] negligence 

doctrine[.]" (Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 573.) Criminal negligence is 

conduct that amounts to a gross or culpable departure from what would be the conduct of 

an ordinarily careful person in the same situation as to show an indifference to 

consequences. (Id. at p. 574.) A person cannot be criminally negligent without having 

actual or constructive knowledge of the risk, which is determined by the following

objective test: if a reasonable person similarly situated would have been aware of the risk 

involved, then the defendant is presumed to have had such an awareness. (Ibid.)

Rachel argues that under these criminal negligence principles, the prosecutor was 

required to prove she "declined to take viable reasonable steps that an objective person 

otherwise would have taken under the circumstances." We agree with this assertion. But 

contrary to Rachel's contentions, the record shows the court applied this standard in 

evaluating the evidence. 

In explaining its conclusion that the prosecution met its burden beyond a 

reasonable doubt, the court told Rachel that once she decided to rent the property and 
9

host the party, "the law requires you . . . to take all reasonable steps to prevent the 

consumption of alcoholic beverages," and identified the four examples of "reasonable 

steps" listed in the ordinance. (Italics added.) The court then stated it found Rachel's 

actions "were not reasonable in light of the circumstances as presented to this court."

(Italics added.) Discussing the facts surrounding the party, the court stated Rachel's 

"efforts to control the party" fell "short" of what was required by the law (what a 

reasonable person aware of the risk would have done in similar circumstances). 

Based on the court's repeated references to the reasonableness of Rachel's actions 

and its observations regarding Rachel's specific actions (or nonactions), we reject 

Rachel's claims the court found she violated the statute merely because underage drinking

occurred at the party. 

In arguing that the court misunderstood the legal standard, Rachel focuses on the 

court's discussion of the bouncers. Rachel contends that by characterizing the bouncers 

as her "agents," the court held her strictly liable for their failure to control the party. The 

argument is unsupported when viewing the court's statements in context. The court 

discussed Rachel's retention of the bouncers in explaining its conclusion that Rachel was 

aware of the possibility there would be underage drinking at the party and that the party

could get out of control. The court's remarks were directed to Rachel's knowledge of the 

likely consequences of hosting a party in a secluded area without parents present and her 

failure to take any reasonable steps once the party got out of control. Despite the court's 
10

use of the word "agents," we are satisfied the court held Rachel liable for her own 

unreasonable actions, and not the bouncers' conduct. 

Moreover, to the extent Rachel argues the court was required to find the presence 

of the bouncers established she acted reasonably to prevent or control the underage 

drinking, we reject this contention. Rachel told the police officers that the bouncers may 

have brought the kegs to the party and that she had no contact information for the two 

young men and did not know their last names. The evidence also showed there was 

alcohol at the outset of the party. These facts support a reasonable inference that Rachel 

did not ask the bouncers to prevent alcohol from being served at the party, and that 

instead she hired the two men to facilitate the underage drinking by preventing the party 

from getting out of control and/or to ensure that partygoers were paying their $20 

admission fee. The fact that the bouncers made no efforts to preclude the availability of 

alcohol at the beginning of the party and may have contributed to the drinking is evidence 

that Rachel did not retain them to prevent underage alcohol consumption. Viewing the 

totality of the circumstances, the court had a reasonable basis to find Rachel's use of the 

bouncers was not a "reasonable step[ ]" under section 32.303, subdivision (a). 

In arguing the court misapplied the correct legal standard, Rachel also relies on the 

court's remark that she "acted in good faith." Read in full, the court stated: "You 

probably acted in good faith wanting a party, you had two bouncers there just in case 

somebody got out of control; it went certainly beyond that." (Italics added.) The court's 

observation that Rachel may have had proper motives in "wanting a party" does not 
11

negate the court's finding that she acted with criminal negligence when she implemented 

this plan by renting a house under false pretenses knowing that alcohol would be served 

to her underage friends, and then failing to take any reasonable actions (such as calling an 

adult or calling the police) when uninvited guests came to the party. 

B. Substantial Evidence Supports Court's Findings

Although Rachel does not directly challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support the court's conclusion that she violated section 32.303, we briefly discuss our 

conclusion that substantial evidence supported the court's finding. 

First, it was undisputed that Rachel rented the house in a private location under the 

false pretense that she was an adult and would be using it for a small retreat. The 

evidence showed Rachel was aware minors would be in attendance because she admitted 

to law enforcement that she rented the house to host a 16th birthday party and invited 30 

peers. The fact that Rachel asked Hauer about the privacy of the home supports an 

inference that Rachel wanted to avoid detection from law enforcement. 

The evidence also shows Rachel knew alcohol would be available at the party. 

When minors entered the party soon after it started, alcohol was freely available. As 

reflected in the testimony of one of the young partygoers, there were no limits placed on 

the alcohol consumption. Further, the officers observed red plastic cups, beer bottles, 

beer cans, and two kegs scattered about the property, showing the alcohol consumption 

was open and obvious.
12

The only evidence indicating that Rachel tried to prevent minors from consuming 

alcohol is her friends' testimony that she attempted to take alcohol away from a few 

people. However, the court had a reasonable basis to find these witnesses not credible. 

Moreover, even if the testimony was believable, there was evidence supporting that this 

step was not reasonable. Once she realized the party had grown out of control, Rachel 

retreated to an upstairs balcony to be by herself. Nothing in the record indicates that 

Rachel took effective steps to stop the party, such as asking the bouncers for assistance in 

preventing the underage drinking, or calling the police or another adult to come and 

control the situation. 

Rachel's failure to take reasonable steps in the light of her knowledge that she was 

hosting a party where alcohol would be freely available to her underage friends supports 

the conclusion that she violated section 32.303 and acted with criminal negligence. 

DISPOSITION

Judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, Acting P.J.

WE CONCUR:

MCDONALD, J.

AARON, J.