People v. M.S. (In re M.S.)
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Gilbert, J.
*584 *1179 M.S. appeals an order of the juvenile court sustaining the allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition and declaring her a ward of the court. Among other conclusions, we decide that sufficient evidence exists that M.S. committed second degree murder. ( Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 12022, subd. (b)(1) [personal use of deadly weapon (knife) ].)
Is M.S. eligible to be considered for referral to a mental health diversion program pursuant to the newly enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36?
*1180 No. The new mental health diversion law does not apply to juveniles. Even if it did, M.S.'s crime, murder, is excluded. We affirm.
This appeal concerns the tragic death of Baby Boy A. following his home birth to then 15-year-old M.S. Frightened that her parents would learn that she had been pregnant and given birth, M.S. inflicted fatal cuts on A.'s throat, severing his carotid artery and trachea. M.S. thereafter placed his body in a plastic bag and concealed the bag in the bathroom vanity. During police questionings, M.S. initially asserted that the infant was born stillborn but then stated that she accidentally wounded him when she cut the…
Concurring Opinion
Yegan, J.
I have signed and I concur with the majority opinion. There is no need to reach the constitutionality of the newly enacted mental health diversion statute. (See Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1081 , 1102, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 , 324 P.3d 50 .) My concurrence should not be considered an opinion that the subject statute is constitutional.
Concurring Opinion
Tangeman, J.
I have signed and I concur with the majority opinion. For those reasons expressed therein, there is no need to reach the issue of the applicability of the newly enacted mental health diversion statute to juvenile proceedings. I therefore express no opinion on that subject in accordance with the " 'cardinal principle of judicial restraint-if it is not *1194 necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 , 381, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 , 411 P.3d 445 .)