In Re Michael G.

This case involves the question of whether a product label may be introduced as an exception to the hearsay rule. Under the facts presented, our answer is yes.

Factual and Procedural History

Michael G. appeals from the order declaring him to be a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) by reason of his possession of a substance containing toluene with the intent to inhale for the purpose of intoxication (Pen. Code, § 381, subd. (a)). He contends on appeal: “I. The list of ingredients on a product label is pure hearsay without exception and therefore inadmissible to prove the ingredients of a product. II. It was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to judicially notice toluene was an ingredient in the spray can.”

The evidence in a juvenile proceeding must be construed in the light most favorable to the finder of fact. (In re Dennis B. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 687, 697 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 82 , 557 P.2d 514 ].) Accordingly, the evidence established that around 2 p.m. on November 29, 1991, appellant was observed outside a Covina restaurant with his hands cupped around his mouth, breathing in and out of a paper bag for about three minutes. Martha Favela, an employee,…