Court Opinion

ID: 9954612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 17:04:00.650691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:58.897406
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/26/24 In re Brenda E. CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

 In re BRENDA E., a Person                                B325056
 Coming Under the Juvenile
 Court Law.                                               (Los Angeles County
                                                          Super. Ct. No. FJ57926)
 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 BRENDA E.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Christina Hill, Judge. Affirmed.
      Mary Bernstein, 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, Zee Rodriguez, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, and Nicholas J. Webster, Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Seventeen-year-old Brenda E. (Minor) shoved a school
employee who was trying to separate Minor and another student
who were arguing in a school restroom. The juvenile court
sustained a juvenile court petition charging Minor with battery
on a school employee in violation of Penal Code section 243.6.1
We are asked to decide whether substantial evidence supports
the juvenile court’s finding that the employee was engaged in the
performance of her duties at the time of the incident.

                          I. BACKGROUND
       The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged Minor in
a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition with a
misdemeanor violation of section 243.6. The statute makes it an
offense to commit a battery against “a school employee engaged
in the performance of his or her duties.” (§ 243.6.)
       At the adjudication hearing, Charlotte Hinrichs (Hinrichs)
testified she was employed as an intervention coordinator at
Roybal Learning Center in Los Angeles. She was responsible for
“supervis[ing] campus aides, . . . monitor[ing] the campus for
safety, and . . . ensur[ing] that students were in class.” Hinrichs
was trained “on how to respond to physical altercations between
students” and her duties included “preempt[ing] situations.”
       One afternoon in December 2021, Hinrichs was supervising
students and saw Minor walking toward a restroom in a “very
focused” and “unusual” manner. Minor entered the restroom,
followed by another student named Abigail. Hinrichs suspected
the students were going to “vape,” but she heard shouting when

1
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Penal Code.

                                2
she reached the restroom. Hinrichs entered the restroom and
saw Minor and Abigail “shouting at each other.” The shouting
was “very loud[ ],” and the situation was “pretty heated.”
       Hinrichs put her arm around Abigail’s waist and attempted
to pull her away from Minor. She described this maneuver as a
“trick” that “gets one student out of [a] situation right away”
without “embarrass[ing] them.” Hinrichs developed the
maneuver on her own. Getting involved in physical altercations
between students was “not part of [her] training,” but Hinrichs
testified the maneuver was “not getting involved in a fight.” She
used the technique “before a fight would ever occur. It is de-
escalating, moving one party away from . . . the situation.”
       Hinrichs testified Abigail did not resist her, but moved her
shoulder “[l]ike[ ] she wanted to stay.” As Hinrichs attempted to
move Abigail, Minor used both hands to push Hinrichs in the
chest. Hinrichs then took a step back. Minor put a finger close to
Hinrichs’ face and told her, “If you do that again, I’m going to do
to you what I’m about to—I want to do to her [i.e., Abigail].”
       Hinrichs was “a little shaken,” but she again tried to
“scoop” Abigail “out of the bathroom.” Minor shoved Hinrichs in
the chest again. This time the shove was harder, and Hinrichs
hit her head against a wall. At that point, Hinrichs “stood there”
and Minor “either grabbed Abigail’s arm or her hair” and “pulled
Abigail toward her.” Minor hit Abigail and Hinrichs radioed for
help, realizing she was unable to de-escalate the situation.
       Before help arrived, Minor and Abigail fought and Hinrichs
tried to keep other students from entering the restroom. Some of
the students “begg[ed]” Hinrichs to let them break up the fight,
and she eventually allowed them to do so. Around the same time,
another adult came to help.

                                3
       Minor testified at the adjudication hearing. She said
Hinrichs put her arm between her and Abigail when they were
“both just arguing” to try to stop them from fighting. Minor told
Hinrichs that if she were to touch her (Minor), Minor was going
to hit her (Hinrichs). Minor admitted she then started fighting
with Abigail, but Minor claimed she never pushed Hinrichs or
“put [her] hands on [Hinrichs].”
       After the fight, Minor and Abigail were “bruised up.”
Hinrichs initially thought she was not injured, but she “started to
see double” the next day. She saw a doctor who “was . . . going to
prescribe medicine for the headaches,” but the symptoms
eventually went away on their own.
       The juvenile court found Hinrichs to be “very credible,”
explaining she had no motive to lie and appeared “uncomfortable
and frankly sad about coming to court and having to testify the
way that she did.” Minor was “much less” credible, especially
because she acknowledged having approached Abigail in their
group home on the day of the hearing to tell her the case could
have serious consequences and she should be “honest” and testify
Minor did not push Hinrichs.2
       The juvenile court sustained the petition, placed Minor on
non-wardship probation for six months, set the maximum term of
confinement as one year, and imposed various conditions of
probation.

                       II. DISCUSSION
      Minor contends there is insufficient evidence to support a
finding that Hinrichs was engaged in the performance of her

2
      Abigail did not testify at the hearing.

                                 4
duties as a school employee and her offense accordingly must be
reduced to the lesser included offense of misdemeanor battery.3
Minor principally argues Hinrichs’ testimony that “getting
involved” in physical altercations between students was “not part
of [her] training” must be understood to mean breaking up fights
was not among Hinrichs’ duties. Even if this is correct, however,
there is still substantial evidence that Hinrichs was engaged in
the performance of her duties: Hinrichs intervened before the
students’ verbal confrontation escalated to a physical altercation.
       “When a battery is committed against a school employee
engaged in the performance of his or her duties, or in retaliation
for an act performed in the course of his or her duties, whether on
or off campus, during the school[ ]day or at any other time, and
the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should
know that the victim is a school employee, the battery is
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or
by both the fine and imprisonment. However, if an injury is
inflicted on the victim, the battery shall be punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by
imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16
months, or two or three years. . . .” (§ 243.6.)

3
      Battery, defined as “any willful and unlawful use of force or
violence upon the person of another” (§ 242), is a lesser included
offense of battery on a school employee. (CALCRIM No. 949.)
Reducing the offense to simple battery (rather than battery on a
school employee) would reduce Minor’s maximum confinement
period from one year to six months. (§§ 243, 243.6.)

                                 5
       Minor does not dispute that Hinrichs was a school
employee, that she knew Hinrichs was a school employee, or that
she committed a battery against Hinrichs. She contends only
that Hinrichs was not engaged in the performance of her duties
for purposes of section 243.6. We will assume for the sake of
argument that Hinrichs was not assigned to physically intervene
in fights between students. Our analysis therefore turns on
whether there is substantial evidence that Minor and Abigail
were not yet fighting when Hinrichs intervened (Minor does not
dispute Hinrichs’ duties included preventing physical
altercations).
       Although Minor and Abigail were shouting at one another
within a larger-than-average restroom stall, both Hinrichs and
Minor testified the situation had not yet escalated to a physical
altercation when Hinrichs put her arm around Abigail’s waist.
Hinrichs employed this maneuver “before a fight would ever
occur,” and Minor testified she and Abigail were “both just
arguing.” Indeed, Minor acknowledges in her reply brief that she
“had not yet hit Abigail” when Hinrichs intervened.
       Notwithstanding this testimony, Minor contends “the fight
had already begun” because Hinrichs testified Abigail resisted
Hinrichs’ intervention by moving her shoulder “[l]ike[ ] she
wanted to stay.” Minor characterizes this motion as an
unambiguous signal that Abigail “did not wish to save face” and
let Hinrichs remove her from the situation. Minor’s factual
inference is questionable—a token gesture of willingness to fight
is perfectly consistent with a desire to be pulled away with
dignity intact—but it is irrelevant in any case. The only evidence
in the record concerning the scope of Hinrichs’ duties is her
testimony, and the only line she (arguably) drew was the point at

                                6
which a conflict between students escalates into physical
violence. There is no sense in which Abigail’s resistance to being
pulled away from Minor can be considered the start of such
physical violence.
       Minor’s suggestion that it is “notabl[e]” Hinrichs “continued
to try to pull Abigail away even after Abigail resisted and after
[Minor] shoved Hinrichs” is also beside the point. Even if
Hinrichs somehow went beyond her duties by trying to extricate
Abigail after Minor shoved Hinrichs the first time—such that the
second shove did not constitute a violation of section 243.6—the
initial shove was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding
that Minor violated section 243.6.

                         DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                        BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

             MOOR, J.

             KIM, J.

                                 7