Opinion ID: 1241212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: introduction of mr. p.'s probation report

Text: Early in the proceedings, Department's attorney requested the court to take judicial notice of the 1975 superior court proceedings in which Mr. P. had been convicted of child abuse on Angelia. Thereafter, at the close of the evidence, in response to an inquiry from the court, the clerk stated that the record, except for the probation report, was available, and that the probation report which was not in the file was being brought up. The court then stated We'll take a short recess then, and I'll read that. No objection was made. (See Evid. Code, § 353.) (7) Appellants now contend that the court's consideration of the report was erroneous because it was hearsay, that appellants were denied an opportunity to object, and alternatively that the failure to object demonstrated that their appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance. We are unpersuaded. In arguing that they had no chance to object, appellants ignore the opportunity afforded to them when the court recessed to consider the report and also at the point when Department's attorney first requested the court to take judicial notice of the criminal proceedings. Next, assuming arguendo that the report was hearsay, counsel's failure to object did not indicate inadequate representation even under the standards urged by appellants. Mr. P.'s criminal history was part of the probation officer's report prepared under section 233 which provides that the juvenile probation officer  shall render to the court a written report of the investigation with a recommendation.... The court shall receive such report in evidence and shall read and consider the contents thereof in rendering its judgment. (Italics added.) It has been held that the written report mandated by the statute is admissible over a general hearsay objection so long as a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine and to controvert the content of the report is afforded. ( In re Heidi T. (1978) 87 Cal. App.3d 864, 875 [151 Cal. Rptr. 263]; In re George G. (1977) 68 Cal. App.3d 146, 155-156 [137 Cal. Rptr. 201].) Appellants had such an opportunity to cross-examine the probation officer who prepared the report and to produce any controverting evidence. They did not refute the evidence thus presented. The information contained in the probation report was therefore cumulative of similar information presented in the section 233 report and admission of the evidence was harmless. (8) The failure of counsel to object did not reflect any lack of competence, because, faced with his adversary's request for the court to take judicial notice, counsel could well have concluded that it was better to permit admission of the report rather than to risk presentation of in-court testimony from other witnesses whose adverse testimony may have been more damaging. This would have been an informed tactical decision.