In re D.L., 2026 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 132 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)

The California Second District Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition orders related to a felony murder charge, finding that the record lacked substantial evidence that the youth acted with reckless indifference to human life. The court stated in relevant part:

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and measured against Emanuel‘s guidance, the evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that appellant acted with reckless indifference to human life. Appellant told his ex-girlfriend the plan was only to scare Ruh with the gun, not to kill him.

Appellant’s smile after the shooting is also subject to multiple inferences. It may support an inference appellant was pleased with what occurred at the Dairy. On the other hand, his smile may be reflective of his immaturity and wanting to be accepted by Johnson, or it may have been the product of shock that the robbery resulted in Ruh’s death. (See J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) 564 U.S. 261, 273, 131 S. Ct. 2394, 180 L. Ed. 2d 310 [“children characteristically lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to understand the world around them”]; see also People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 844, 318 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513, 543 P.3d 960 [children are more vulnerable than adults to negative influences and outside pressures including from their peers]; In re Moore (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 434, 454, 283 Cal. Rptr. 3d 584 [“defendant’s youth is a relevant factor in determining whether the defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life”].)

Finally, the juvenile court’s finding that Ruh “must have known” appellant and therefore appellant must have intended to shoot Ruh in order for the robbery to be successful is not supported by substantial evidence. No witness testified Ruh actually knew appellant, or more generally, knew the Dairy’s customers. The court’s conclusion  that appellant “must have” intended to kill Ruh is also not supported by the evidence and not in keeping with Emanuel‘s guidance. Appellant told M.H. the plan was to scare Ruh and the events did not unfold as planned. The record contains no evidence supporting the court’s inference appellant intended to kill Ruh to prevent Ruh from later identifying him.”