In re D.H. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Understanding of Conduct’s Wrongfulness Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he understood the wrongfulness of his conduct. We disagree. “Penal Code section 26 articulates a presumption that a minor under the age of 14 is incapable of committing a crime.” (In re Manuel L. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 229, 231.) To overcome this presumption, the People “must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the minor appreciated the wrongfulness of the charged conduct at the time it was committed.” (Id. at p. 232.) “In determining whether the minor knows of the wrongfulness of his conduct, the court must often rely on circumstantial evidence such as the minor’s age, experience, and understanding, as well as the circumstances of the offense, including its method of commission and concealment.” (In re James B. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 862, 872.) Generally, “‘it is only reasonable to expect’” that as children approach the age of 14, they are more likely to understand the wrongfulness of their acts. (People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 378.) “We review the whole record most favorably to the judgment to determine whether there is substantial evidence—…