People v. Superior Court

This is an application for a writ of mandate, seeking to compel the respondents to accept jurisdiction in certain cases where the defendants have been arraigned in the Superior Court, sitting as a Juvenile Court, and have entered a plea of “not guilty” to a charge of violation of section 21 of the Juvenile Court Law.

The petition alleges that a criminal complaint was filed in the Justice’s Court of Ontario township, in the county of San Bernardino, this being a township wherein the population is less than thirty thousand, by which complaint a certain named defendant was charged with the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor, as provided by section 21 of the Juvenile Court Law (Gen. Laws of Cal., 1923, at p. 1568), which offense was alleged to have been committed within the boundaries of that township. It is then alleged that after a preliminary hearing, the defendant was held to answer upon said charge by a commitment issued by said Justice’s Court; that thereafter an information was filed in the Superior Court of said county, sitting as a Juvenile Court, charging said defendant with said offense; that thereafter said defendant appeared before said Superior Court, sitting as a Juvenile Court, the Honorable Benjamin P. Warmer presiding, and after being arraigned, entered a plea of “not guilty.” That thereafter the district attorney requested that the matter be set down for trial and be tried in said Superior Court, sitting as a Juvenile Court. This motion was denied upon the ground that this court was without jurisdiction to proceed further. Thereupon the district attorney moved that the said court transfer or certify the ease to the Superior Court for trial, or for further proceedings. This motion was also denied, upon the ground that said court was without jurisdiction to take any further proceedings in the case. The petition further alleges a similar state of facts with reference to another defendant, also charged with a violation of the same section of the Juvenile Court Act, the only difference being that the Justice’s Court of the township of San Bernardino, which township has a population in excess of thirty thousand, refused to accept jurisdiction to try the case, and thereafter held a preliminary hearing and issued a commitment which was followed by an infor

The only • question presented is what court, if any, has jurisdiction to hear and try a case, after a plea of “not guilty” to a charge.of violating the provisions of section 21 of the Juvenile Court Law of the state of California has been entered in the Juvenile Court.

Section 21 of the Juvenile Court Law reads as follows: “Any person who shall commit any act or omit the performance of any duty, which act or omission causes or tends to cause or encourage any person under the age of twenty-one years to come within the provisions of any of subdivivisions one to thirteen inclusive of section one of this act, or which act or omission contributes thereto, or any person who shall, by any act or omission, or by threats, or commands, or persuasion, induce or endeavor to induce any such person, under the age of twenty-one years, to do or to perform any act or to follow any course of conduct, or to so live as would cause or manifestly tend to cause any such person to become or to remain a person coming within the provisions of any of subdivisions one to thirteen, inclusive, of section 1 of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than two years,

While the Juvenile Court Law has been before the courts a number of times, the question here involved has not been directly passed upon. The question seems to have now arisen, in connection with the uncertainty that has followed recent changes in the jurisdiction of Justices’ Courts in criminal matters. It is apparent, however, that under the provisions of section 1425 of the Penal Code, as amended in 1929, no jurisdiction is conferred upon the Justice’s Court to try such cases as those here involved. Under this section this class of cases is particularly excluded from the jurisdiction of Justices’ Courts in places having a population of 30,000 or more. And in places having a less population the jurisdiction of such courts is limited to cases in which the term of imprisonment does not exceed six months.

Section 21 of the Juvenile Court Law, after providing that the Superior Court, sitting as a Juvenile Court, shall have original jurisdiction over all such misdemeanors, goes on to provide that said court shall cause the defendant to be arraigned, and to plead in the manner provided upon indictment or information, and then provides that said court shall also have jurisdiction to impose a penalty, where the defendant enters a plea of “guilty.” There is, however,

Where a plea of “not guilty” has thus been entered in the Juvenile Court, it does not follow that all proceedings must close and the defendant be freed, for such a construction would nullify the penalty provisions of section 21 of the Juvenile Court Act. In the construction of a statute “all its provisions must be considered together; they must be reconciled as far as possible, and particular provisions must be so construed as to promote and not to defeat the general purposes and policy of the law.” (Welch v. Williams, 96 Cal. 365 [ 31 Pac. 222 ].) It must not be forgotten that the Juvenile Court is the Superior Court acting in a particular class of offenses. (Edington v. Superior Court, 18 Cal. App. 739 [ 124 Pac. 450 , 128 Pac. 338 ]; Nicholl v. Koster, 157 Cal. 416 [ 108 Pac. 302 , 303]; People v. Budd, 24 Cal. App. 176 [ 140 Pac. 714 ].) The misdemeanor in question has been created by section 21 of the Juvenile Court Law. Section 5 of article VI of the Constitution of California provides that the Superior Court shall have jurisdiction in all eases of misdemeanor, not otherwise provided for. If the jurisdiction of this misdemeanor, after a plea of “not guilty” in the Juvenile Court, is not given to the Superior Court in section 21 of the Juvenile Court Law, it is not provided for, and under the constitutional provision, jurisdiction is in the Superior Court. It has been frequently held that the Superior Court has jurisdiction over this class of cases. (In re Sing, 13 Cal. App. 736 [ 110 Pac. 693 ]; Edington v. Superior Court, supra; Nicholl v. Koster, supra; People v. Budd, supra.) It has also been held that such a case being triable in the Superior Court, section 888 of the Penal Code is appli

That the actual trial of a person charged with a violation of section 21 of the Juvenile Court Act, after a plea of not guilty, should be had in the Superior Court rather than in the Juvenile Court, is in harmony with the whole spirit and purpose of the Juvenile Court Law, and the system and procedure based upon it. As the court said in Nicholl v. Koster, supra, “The main purpose of the act is to provide for the care and custody of children who have shown, or who from lack of care are likely to develop, criminal tendencies, in order to have them trained to good habits and correct principles.” To this end, and with this purpose in mind, the Juvenile Court has appropriately been given an original jurisdiction over cases wherein the defendant is charged with an offense, the very essence of which is a violation not only of the statute, but of the very principles and purposes forming the foundation of the entire act. On the

Let a writ of mandate issue out of this court, directed to said Superior Court, and to said judge thereof, directing said judge to transfer the cases mentioned to the Superior Court of said county, and directing said Superior Court to accept jurisdiction thereof, and to hear, determine and render judgment in the same.

Sloane, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.