In Re Randy S.

In In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 148 ], the court decided there was insufficient evidence that the defendant possessed the specific intent to arouse his own sexual desires because he was 11 years old. In this case, we hold that the fact the defendant is 11 years old is only one factor to consider in determining whether he is capable of possessing the specific intent to arouse his own sexual desires.

Randy S., a minor, (herein Defendant) appeals from a final judgment following the juvenile court’s adjudication that he committed a lewd act *403 upon a child in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), 1 and subsequent adjudication of Defendant as a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence of the key element of intent to arouse sexual desires. We disagree and affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

Facts

On April 3, 1998, at 7:30 a.m., Defendant’s stepmother (herein Mother) heard Defendant and his stepsister, Ryan, in the shower. Defendant was 11 years old and Ryan was 2 at the time. Mother tried to open the bathroom door but it was locked. After she told Defendant to open the…

I dissent. Here there was insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that beyond a reasonable doubt Randy intended sexually to exploit Ryan in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a).

“Violation of section 288, subdivision (a) requires the specific intent of arousing the sexual desires of either the perpetrator or the victim. . . . Because the requisite specific intent is an element of the crime it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289, 299 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 148 ].) “[T]he younger the minor the less likely his acts are with the specific intent of sexual arousal.” (Id., at p. 300.)

The majority opinion relies on the following evidence to support its conclusion that the trial court did not err in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Randy violated Penal Code section 288:

*409 This evidence shows that Randy knew that what he did was wrong and that it was of a sexual nature. The evidence does not establish that he touched Ryan’s vagina “with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying” his own “lust, passions, or sexual desires.”

On the other hand, there was substantial evidence that Randy was a…

HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J.

In In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289 , 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 148 , the court decided there was insufficient evidence that the defendant possessed the specific intent to arouse his own sexual desires because he was 11 years old. In this case, we hold that the fact the defendant is 11 years old is only one factor to consider in determining whether he is capable of possessing the specific intent to arouse his own sexual desires.

Randy S., a minor, (herein "Defendant") appeals from a final judgment following the juvenile court's adjudication that he committed a lewd act upon a child in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), [1] and subsequent adjudication of Defendant as a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 602.) Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence of the key element of intent to arouse sexual desires. We disagree and affirm the juvenile court's judgment.

On April 3, 1998, at 7:30 a.m., Defendant's stepmother (herein "Mother") heard Defendant and his stepsister, Ryan, in the shower. Defendant was 11 and Ryan was 2 at the time. Mother tried to open the bathroom door but it was locked. After she told Defendant to open the…