Reported / Citable
Background
J.H., a juvenile, pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) and admitted a great bodily injury enhancement after stabbing Officer Devin Hidalgo in the neck and head with a knife. The juvenile court sentenced him to a baseline confinement term of four years, with a maximum confinement term of approximately five years. At the original disposition hearing, Officer Hidalgo provided a victim impact statement that the court considered.
Six months after the disposition, the juvenile court held a baseline review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, subdivision (e). At that hearing, the court considers the juvenile’s rehabilitative progress and may modify the baseline term accordingly. The Briones Youth Academy Review Board recommended a 26-day baseline reduction based on J.H.’s participation in programming and other progress, with some concerns about disrespectful behavior. Probation and the prosecution adopted that recommendation.
Officer Hidalgo submitted a new victim impact statement for the six-month review hearing. J.H.’s counsel objected, arguing that the focus of the hearing was J.H.’s progress, that the officer had already submitted a statement at disposition, and that the statement was not appropriate at the review stage. The juvenile court overruled the objection, considered the victim impact statement to the limited extent it bore on J.H.’s rehabilitative progress, and declined to reduce the baseline term. J.H. appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal, Division Three, affirmed. The court held that the juvenile court did not err in admitting and considering the victim impact statement at the six-month baseline review hearing, because the court limited its consideration to those portions of the statement relevant to the juvenile’s rehabilitative progress.
Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, subdivision (e)(1)(A), the focus of the six-month review is on the juvenile’s rehabilitative progress. But evaluation of rehabilitation necessarily includes assessment of whether the juvenile has developed empathy and understanding of the impact of the offense on the victim. A victim impact statement that reflects the victim’s continuing experience of harm can inform whether the juvenile has internalized the consequences of the offense.
The juvenile court here struck the appropriate balance. It explicitly recognized that six-month reviews focus on the juvenile’s progress, distinguished those components of the victim’s statement that addressed punishment and sentencing concerns from those that addressed ongoing harm, and considered only the latter. The court’s decision not to reduce the baseline term rested on J.H.’s ongoing behavioral issues, not on punishment-oriented considerations. By limiting its reliance on the victim impact statement to material bearing on rehabilitation, the court ensured that the statement informed, but did not displace, the statutory focus.
Key Takeaways
- Victim impact statements may be considered at six-month baseline review hearings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, subdivision (e), provided the court limits its consideration to rehabilitation-relevant material.
- Rehabilitation evaluation properly includes whether the juvenile has developed empathy and understanding of the impact of the offense on the victim.
- Components of victim impact statements that address punishment or sentencing are not relevant at baseline review hearings and should be set aside.
- Trial courts should make clear on the record how they are using the victim impact statement and what limitations they are observing.
- Continuing behavioral issues by the juvenile, even alongside positive participation in programming, can support a decision not to reduce the baseline term.
Why It Matters
This decision provides useful guidance to juvenile courts conducting six-month review hearings under the post-DJJ realignment framework. Victim impact statements are not categorically excluded at these hearings, but their use must be carefully limited to the rehabilitation-focused inquiry the statute requires. Trial courts should make a clear record of the limitations they observe.
For juvenile defense lawyers, the case is a reminder to push for clarity about what role the victim impact statement plays at review hearings. For prosecutors and victims’ advocates, the opinion provides authority that victim voices remain relevant in juvenile rehabilitation proceedings, but only to the extent they bear on the juvenile’s development of empathy and understanding. The opinion should help standardize practice across counties as more counties build out their secure youth treatment facility programs and conduct regular review hearings.