In re D.W.
People v. D.W.
Opinion
Opinion
Ruvolo, J.
L
INTRODUCTION
D.W. appeals from an order continuing him as a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) He contends that the juvenile court violated his constitutional right to due process by permitting an amendment to the wardship petition during a contested jurisdiction hearing, which added a charge that D.W. committed a battery with injury on a peace officer while he was detained at juvenile hall. (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (c)(2).) D.W. also contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that he committed that offense.
As we will explain, the amendment to the wardship petition did not violate D.W.’s due process rights, but the record does not contain substantial evidence that the battery D.W. committed caused an injury as that term is defined by the pertinent statute. (§ 243, subd. (f)(5).) Therefore, we will modify the appealed order to reflect that D.W. committed a battery against a peace officer. (§ 243, subd. (b).)
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Background
In May 2010, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an original wardship petition charging 13-year-old D.W. with misdemeanor battery on a school employee and two…