In re John M.
In re John M.
Filed 8/18/08 In re John M. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re JOHN M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOHN M.,
Defendant and Appellant. |
A120234
(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J07-01689) |
I. Introduction
After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that John M. (appellant) committed an attempted second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211; 664.) Based on this finding, appellant was adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court and placed on 30 days home supervision. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602.) On appeal, appellant contends there is insufficient evidence that he aided and abetted the commission of the attempted robbery. We affirm.
II. Facts and Procedural History
At approximately 2:30 p.m. on August 31, 2007, teenagers Matthew S. and Patrick H. were approached by a group of four other teenaged boys. The four were later identified as appellant, H.A., S.S., and Joseph N.[1] After the four strangers walked toward them, H.A. demanded that Matthew, [g]ive me your money. Matthew was frightened. He responded, I dont have any. H.A. stated, Let me get a pocket check.
Appellant, S.S, and Joseph had formed a tight semicircle around the two victims. According to Matthew, appellant was standing approximately two feet away. Appellants expression was described as pissed off and angry.
H.A. grabbed Matthew and searched his pockets. Matthew did not resist because he was afraid of being hurt. Patrick stated, Dude, what the hell? We dont have any money. S.S responded in a loud and angry voice, Shut the f up or Ill beat your ass.
Matthew didnt have any money or any other items of value in his pockets. He did not have a wallet. H.A. removed the contents of Matthews pockets, including a pack of gum, which H.A. kept. H.A. said, F this. Lets bounce. The four assailants went into the parking lot of the apartment complex across the street.
Matthew and Patrick saw a security guard at a nearby Chevron station and reported the incident. Matthew, Patrick, and the security guard drove into the parking lot of the apartment complex that the four juveniles had walked to after the incident. The guard told Matthew and Patrick to stay in the car while he went to look for the perpetrators. After about 5 or 10 minutes, while they were in the car, Matthew and Patrick saw appellant walking alone. They honked the horn but could not attract the guards attention. The security guard eventually apprehended the other three participants, but not appellant; and the police were summoned. Appellant was later identified as the fourth person involved in the attempted robbery.
Appellants contested jurisdictional hearing was conducted jointly with codefendants H.A., S.S, and Joseph. Appellant did not testify at the jurisdictional hearing nor did he call any witnesses. The court found that the allegations of the petition were true and set the matter for a dispositional hearing. Thereafter, at the dispositional hearing on October 26, 2007, the court declared appellant to be a ward of the court and placed him on home supervision for 30 days. This appeal followed.
III. Discussion
Appellant contends the evidence does not support the finding that he aided and abetted in the attempted robbery. He points out that [i]t is uncontroverted that appellant neither said anything nor touched anyone during the incident.
[A] person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates, the commission of the crime. (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 561; see People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1038-1039.)
Among the factors that may be taken into account when determining whether a defendant aided and abetted a crime are presence at the crime scene, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense. (In re Juan G. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 (Juan G.).) Mere presence at the scene of a crime, knowledge of the perpetrators criminal purpose, or the failure to prevent the crime do not amount to aiding and abetting, although these factors may be taken into account in determining a defendants criminal responsibility. (People v. Nguyen (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 518, 529-530; People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 409.) Whether defendant aided and abetted the crime is a question of fact, and on appeal all conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences must be resolved in favor of the judgment. [Citation.] (People v. Campbell, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 409; Juan G., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 5.)
The evidence in this case supports the reasonable inference that appellant knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted the attempted robbery. Appellant was standing next to H.A. when H.A. loudly announced his intention to search Matthews pockets. Appellant looked angry while H.A. grabbed Matthew and removed the contents of his pockets. In finding appellant committed the charged offense, the juvenile court noted the evidence showed appellant and his cohorts formed a semicircle, thereby facilitating that robbery, making the boys even more fearful that they were going to get jumped by the four kids that were standing there. Matthew said that he wasnt looking up, but when he was looking down, he could see everybodys tennis shoes, everybody was very close. Given the number of persons involved in the attempted robbery and the way they positioned themselves around the victims, the juvenile court reasonably inferred that appellant was there to increase the boys fear that they were going to get beat up if they did not comply with H.A.s demands. After the criminal episode was over, all four boys walked off together.
Appellant may have committed no overt act during the course of the robbery but none was required. As the trial court recognized, his presence could have given encouragement to his companions and acted as a deterrent to any resistance on the part of the victims. That is sufficient to make him a participant in the crime. The act required for aiding and abetting liability need not be a substantial factor in the offense. Liability attaches to anyone concerned, however slight such concern may be, for the law establishes no degree of the concern required to fix liability as a principal, [citation] [citation], and extends to lookouts, getaway drivers, persons present to divert suspicion or give warning to anyone who seeks to interfere, and the like. (People v. Swanson-Birabent (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 733, 743; People v. Phan (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1463-1464.)
The facts in this case closely parallel those in Juan G., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th 1. There, Juan G. and Quincy D. approached the victim, Estevez. Quincy spoke to the victim, pointed a knife at him, and demanded money. Juan stood close enough to touch the victim, and the victim felt threatened by him. When the victim complied, Quincy and Juan fled. They were subsequently found by police together. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) In his defense, Juan claimed he had not known Quincy had a knife or was planning to rob the victim. (Id. at p. 4.) The juvenile court sustained a juvenile petition against Juan alleging that he aided and abetted the robbery. (Ibid.) On appeal, the court rejected Juans argument that he was nothing more than an unwitting and passive bystander. (Id. at p. 5.) The court relied on the fact that the minors approached the victim together; when Quincy demanded money at knifepoint, Juan was beside him; the victim felt intimidated by Juan; and after the robbery the minors fled together. (Id. at pp. 5-6.)
Also instructive is the case of In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087 (Lynette G.). In that case, one teenage girl struck a woman and took her pursue while Lynette G. and two other teenagers stood approximately five feet away. (Id. at pp. 1090-1091.) When the victim called out for help, the four young women fled. They were subsequently found and arrested together. (Id. at pp. 1091-1092.) Although there was no indication Lynette G.s presence was threatening to the victim, the court in Lynette G. nevertheless found that substantial evidence supported the finding that she had aided and abetted the robbery. (Id. at p. 1095.) Based on its review of the evidence, the court reasoned that, [t]estimony by witnesses at the trial disclosed that [the minor] was present at the scene of the crime and had fled with the perpetrator and two others after the crime had been committed and was still in their company shortly thereafter. Although flight, in and of itself, may be explained by a desire merely to disassociate oneself from an unexpected criminal activity, the trial court was not required to adopt that view; it could, reasonably, have concluded that had [the minors] flight been from fear of an unjustified charge of involvement, she also would have immediately disassociated herself from the other three girls. (Id. at p. 1095.) Accordingly, the court concluded: On the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court erred in finding that [the minor] had aided and abetted the robbery of [the victim]. (Ibid.)
The facts that were present in Juan G. and Lynette G. are present in the instant case. Without again detailing the evidence, appellant approached the victims together with the other perpetrators, stood close by during the encounter without attempting to dissociate himself from the events that were unfolding or appearing surprised by the demands for Matthews money, and he left with the other perpetrators after the attempted robbery was completed.[2] Such conduct is a textbook example of aiding and abetting. [Citations.] (Campbell, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 409.)
IV. Disposition
The jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed.
_
Ruvolo, P. J.
We concur:
_
Reardon, J.
_
Sepulveda, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] For simplicity sake, we will refer to all of the juveniles, perpetrators and victims, by their first names. No disrespect is intended.
[2] In attempting to minimize his involvement, appellant points out that after the victims had summoned a security guard, appellant was seen walking alone. Appellant believes it is significant that while the other three defendants were subsequently apprehended together by the security guard, appellant was not with them. The evidence, however, establishes that immediately after the criminal activity concluded, appellant left with his three co-participants and they walked together into the parking lot of a nearby apartment complex. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that appellant acted immediately to disassociate himself from the others.
|
