People v. Thomas F.

Good Law
113 Cal. App. 4th 1249·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1798·2003 Daily Journal DAR 13149·7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 19·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10486
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 4, 2003No. H024767California2,610 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Rushing, J.

Thomas E, a minor, appeals from an order of the juvenile court in which he was found to be a ward of the court as described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. At the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court prohibited the minor from calling four witnesses to testify on his behalf on the ground that defense counsel had failed to disclose her intent to call these witnesses to the prosecution in a timely manner. We find the juvenile court erred in refusing to allow the minor to call the four witnesses and reverse the order.

The minor also petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, which we ordered considered with his appeal. He raises arguments centering on the issue of his counsel’s effectiveness. We dispose of the habeas petition by separate order filed concurrently. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 24(b)(4).)

Statement of the Case and Facts

The instant case is a juvenile delinquency action that arose from allegations that the minor, age 16 at the time, engaged in acts of molestation on two pre-teen girls. At the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found true the allegations of molestation as to one of the girls (Victim 1), while making a…

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.