In Re Michael

Good Law
178 Cal. App. 3d 159·223 Cal. Rptr. 503
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 1986A029437California5,290 words

Opinion

Opinion

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

CHANNELL, J.

Michael V. (Michael), a minor, appeals from an order of the juvenile court continuing his status as a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 602, 777), [1] removing him from the custody of his parents (§ 726), and committing him to the Youth Authority (§ 731).

In this case of first impression, [2] we are called upon to decide whether a juvenile court judge may consider previously suppressed evidence during the disposition phase of a juvenile delinquency proceeding. Absent a statute to the contrary, we have concluded there is no constitutional bar, state or federal, to the consideration of such evidence at a disposition hearing. Indeed, the Arnold-Kennick Juvenile Court Law (§ 200 et seq.) expressly provides that the juvenile court "shall receive in evidence" such "relevant and material evidence as may be offered" on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the minor. (§ 706; see also § 725.5.) It was therefore proper for the juvenile court to consider at Michael's disposition hearing the fact that he was carrying three bindles of cocaine and $35 in currency when he was taken into custody, even though that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.