Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re J.P. CA6

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: H052783

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (128)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/4/26 In re J.P. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re J.P., a Person Coming Under the H052783
Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. 24JV46614A)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court sustained an allegation that the minor J.P. committed an act
which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a criminal threat. J.P. contends on
appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s finding. We reject the
contention and will affirm the jurisdictional order.
I. BACKGROUND
A wardship petition alleged that J.P. threatened to commit a crime resulting in
death or great bodily injury against another minor, D.C. (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a).)
At the jurisdictional hearing, D.C. testified that she was walking home one day in
September 2023 when she passed a group of people including J.P. D.C. did not know
J.P. but recognized him and “Dopey,” another member of the group, as “southerners”
who frequently targeted her with gang-related insults.
J.P. and Dopey were standing near a car with three other people, whom D.C. could
not identify because they were wearing ski masks. The three masked members of the
group stayed next to the car while J.P. and Dopey approached D.C. Dopey approached
her from the front while J.P. approached her from the back. They told D.C., “ ‘Fuck you,
bitch’ ” and “ ‘Fuck your family.’ ” D.C. thought she was “going to get jumped” and was
afraid for her safety. When she turned around to walk away, she saw J.P. pointing a gun
at her head. While J.P. pointed the gun at her, Dopey made comments including “ ‘Oh,
just shoot her’ ” and “ ‘Do it.’ ” Believing she was about to be shot, D.C. ran away.
D.C. acknowledged on cross-examination that when she was interviewed by the
police the day after the incident, she told them Dopey was the one with the gun and J.P.
was the one who verbally threatened her. On redirect examination, D.C. explained, “I
just must have got their names mixed up that day because I don’t – didn’t know who they
were exactly. Just knew them by their gang names.” She confirmed that J.P. had pointed
a gun at her while Dopey spoke. She testified Dopey made numerous comments
including “ ‘Buster bitch, we’re going to kill you,’ ” and J.P. did not say anything during
the incident.
The juvenile court found that D.C. was not “completely unbelievable, even though
there was some inconsistency in her testimony.” Based on D.C.’s various descriptions of
the incident, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that J.P. had committed the
alleged offense as either a direct perpetrator (if he had verbally threatened D.C.) or an
aider and abettor (if he had pointed the gun at her without saying anything). The court
exercised its discretion to deem the “wobbler” offense a felony. At the dispositional
hearing, the court declared J.P. a ward of the court and placed him on probation.
II. DISCUSSION
J.P. argues the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding
that he threatened or assisted in threatening to commit a crime resulting in death or great
bodily injury. His contention is subject to the same substantial evidence standard
2
applicable in adult criminal cases. (In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026.) Under that
standard, the question is “ ‘ “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “We must presume in
support of the judgment the existence of every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably
deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919.)
The juvenile court found J.P. committed the charged offense as either a direct
perpetrator or an aider and abettor. A participant in a crime aids and abets the
commission of that crime “when he or she, acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful
purpose of the perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or
facilitating the commission of the offense, (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages
or instigates the commission of the crime.” (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547,
561.)
Addressing the version of events in which J.P. pointed a gun at D.C. while Dopey
verbally threatened her, J.P. asserts his nonverbal conduct did not rise to the level of
aiding and abetting. He correctly notes that mere presence at the scene of the offense
would not make him an aider and abettor. But D.C. testified that J.P. and Dopey
approached her in a coordinated manner from opposite directions, blocking her path, and
that J.P. pointed a gun directly at her head from a short distance away. J.P. continued
pointing the gun at D.C. while Dopey made comments threatening to kill D.C. and
encouraging J.P. to shoot her. The court could reasonably conclude from that evidence
that J.P. knew Dopey intended to threaten D.C., intended to assist in threatening her, and
aided the threat by approaching D.C. and pointing a gun at her.
Addressing the alternate version of events in which J.P. himself made comments
directed toward D.C. during the incident, J.P. contends those comments do not establish
his intent to threaten D.C. He focuses on two comments: “ ‘Fuck you, buster bitch’ ”
and “ ‘Fuck your family.’ ” D.C. initially testified on direct examination that both J.P.
3
and Dopey made those comments while approaching her, before clarifying on redirect
examination that only Dopey had spoken throughout the entire incident. D.C.
acknowledged that she had heard similar insults in the past and had sometimes simply
responded by telling Dopey and his friends to “leave me alone.” But D.C. also
unambiguously testified that after J.P. and Dopey approached her, one of them pointed a
gun at her while the other made expressly threatening comments. (She said J.P. had the
gun and Dopey made the comments, although she had previously told police the
opposite.) Whether or not J.P. said “ ‘Fuck you, buster bitch’ ” and “ ‘Fuck your
family’ ” while approaching D.C., and even assuming those comments could not be
considered threatening by themselves, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude from
J.P.’s other conduct during the incident that he intended to threaten D.C.
J.P. also asserts D.C.’s testimony was “inherently improbable” and thus
insufficient on its own to support the juvenile court’s finding. (See People v. Young
(2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) He bases that assertion on D.C.’s varying descriptions of
J.P.’s conduct during the incident. But D.C. consistently described that J.P. and Dopey
approached her in a coordinated manner and that one of them pointed a gun at her while
the other made threatening comments. Nothing in that testimony was inherently
improbable so as to undermine the juvenile court’s conclusion that she was not
“completely unbelievable, even though there was some inconsistency in her testimony.”
We must defer to the juvenile court’s conclusions regarding witness credibility and will
affirm the jurisdictional order.
III. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

4

Grover, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

Lie, J.

Wilson, J.

H052783
The People v. J.P.