Court Opinion

ID: 9719743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:02:15.731906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:49.917836
License: Public Domain

ARABIAN, J.
I respectfully dissent.
*919“If rogues did but know all the pains that the law has taken for their benefit, honest men would have nothing left they could call their own.”1
Appellant relies on In re Robert G. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 437 [182 Cal.Rptr. 644, 644 P.2d 837], in contending the order of wardship must be reversed. He argues that inasmuch as an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)) is not an offense with which appellant was originally charged, and is not an offense necessarily included within the charged crimes of battery (Pen. Code, § 242) or robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), he did not receive adequate notice of the felonious assault charge sufficient to comport with due process.
In Robert G. a minor was adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) based on a finding that he had committed a battery in violation of Penal Code section 242. The petition, however, alleged that the minor had committed an assault with a deadly weapon, a rock, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a). The juvenile court agreed that the small rock Robert G. had thrown could not be a deadly weapon and acknowledged that battery (Pen. Code, § 242) was not a lesser offense necessarily included within the assault with a deadly weapon charge (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)), but it permitted amendment of the petition to conform to the evidence and sustained it as so amended.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding “that a wardship petition under § 602 may not be sustained upon findings that the minor has committed an offense or offenses other than the one specifically alleged in the petition or necessarily included within an alleged offense, unless the minor consents to a finding on a substituted charge.” (In re Robert G., supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 445.)
The Court summarized its due process concerns as follows: “ ‘[D]ue process requires that a minor, like an adult, have adequate notice of the charge so that he may intelligently prepare his defense. [Citations.] Compliance with this requirement has been held by the Supreme Court to mandate that the minor ‘be notified, in writing, of the specific charge or factual allegations to be considered at the hearing, and that such written notice be given at the earliest practicable time, and in any event sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation.’ [Citation.]” (In re Robert G., supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 442.)
In the instant case, although there was a technical departure from the notice requirements of Robert G., appellant received adequate notice of the *920charges against him before he was required to present his defense. In Robert G. the petition was amended after the defendant had rested without presenting evidence. (31 Cal.3d at pp. 439-440.) Here, after the petition was amended, appellant presented a full defense. His defense, based on his own testimony and that of Arnold H., was that he was merely a bystander who witnessed the events and that someone else hit and kicked the victim Joel. Not only was that defense of mistaken identity appropriate for all allegations of the petition, including the newly added felonious assault allegation, but even had appellant been charged with the offense before the hearing, he could not have presented a stronger defense than to say, “It was not I.” As such, he was not misled, surprised,2 nor prejudiced and we need not speculate as to his assertible defenses.
Moreover, following the People’s case-in-chief, when the court indicated it was going to amend the petition to add the Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a), violation, appellant’s counsel had the opportunity to, and did, argue that the charge should be dismissed because the evidence was insufficient to show the assault was made by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.
I conclude, therefore, that because the petition was amended at the close of the prosecution’s case, before appellant presented his defense, this case is clearly distinguishable from In re Robert G.; appellant was not denied due process of law.
I would affirm.
Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 25, 1985. Mosk, J., Grodin, J., and Lucas, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Jeremy Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence, 6 Works, page 205.

After adding Code section 245, subdivision (a), to the petition as count III, the trial judge stated: “The court does find that these facts do not create a legal surprise, that these facts on which the 242 was based easily could have been admitted on the AGBI.” !