In Re Joseph G.

Petitions were filed in the Juvenile Department of the Superior Court in the County of Merced representing that the minors, Joseph G., Jesse C., and Johnny G., came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 by reason of having violated Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f), disorderly conduct by being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, which the juvenile court found to be true, and Penal Code section 148, resisting arrest, which the court found to be untrue.

Appellants were found to come within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and were adjudged wards of the court and placed on probation. All three cases arise out of the same transaction, the *698 facts and legal issues are identical, and they are considered as one on this appeal.

About 3:55 a.m. August 20, 1968, Officer Harold McKinney, while on patrol in the City of Livingston, was attracted by loud voices and observed appellants standing on a sidewalk next to a fence in front of the residence of Joe and Johnny. He pulled over to the curb and told the youths they were violating the curfew law and to “break it up” and go home. They advised him they were on…

I dissent. I do so primarily with respect to the holding in the majority opinion that In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 368 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 ], applies retroactively to cases such as this, i.e., cases pending on appeal on the date the Winship opinion was filed, March 31, 1970. There has as yet been no such determination by either the United States Supreme Court or by our California Supreme Court. I do not read either Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 248 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 ], or People v. Edwards, 71 Cal.2d 1096 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 458 P.2d 713 ], as requiring retroactive application of Winship in this case.

The issue in both of the cited cases was whether a prior decision of the United States Supreme Court involving, as here, alleged rights under the *706 Constitution should be given retroactive application. In Desist , the court held that Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 576 , 88 S.Ct. 507 ], which proscribed electronic eavesdropping on private conversations, “should be given wholly prospective application.” In People v. Edwards, 71 Cal.2d 1096 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 458 P.2d 713 ], where the issue was the prospective or retroactive…

Petitions were filed in the Juvenile Department of the Superior Court in the County of Merced representing that the minors, Joseph G., Jesse C., and Johnny G., came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 by reason of having violated Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f), disorderly conduct by being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, which the juvenile court found to be true, and Penal Code section 148, resisting arrest, which the court found to be untrue.

Appellants were found to come within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and were adjudged wards of the court and placed on probation. All three cases arise out of the same transaction, the facts and legal issues are identical, and they are considered as one on this appeal.

About 3:55 a.m. August 20, 1968, Officer Harold McKinney, while on patrol in the City of Livingston, was attracted by loud voices and observed appellants standing on a sidewalk next to a fence in front of the residence of Joe and Johnny. He pulled over to the curb and told the youths they were violating the curfew law and to "break it up" and go home. They advised him they…