In re E.M. CA3

BACKGROUND

Because E.M.’s contentions all challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s factual determinations, we relay the facts in the light most favorable to the court’s order and “ ‘ “ ‘presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 942-943.) E.M. was driving his car with minor R.M. in the passenger seat when R.M. fired gel pellets from E.M.’s air gun out the car window and into a nearby minivan, striking victim L.F. in the side of the face, shoulder, and neck. L.F., who served for 11 years in the United States Army infantry, including seeing combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, described the feeling of the pellets as like sand and rocks hitting him after an explosion. E.M. sped off, and L.F. chased E.M.’s car, trying to identify the shooters and their car. L.F. explained to police that he did not want the shooters to get away with such dangerous behavior in his neighborhood. When L.F. pulled up alongside E.M.’s car, R.M. again shot L.F. in the face with gel pellets. L.F. then steered his van into the side of E.M.’s car, causing it to…