## Facts

- A juvenile petition under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 602 alleged Jay J., a minor, discharged a firearm at an inhabited dwelling.
- The jurisdictional hearing was conducted by a juvenile court referee; the proceedings were reported and transcribed.
- The prosecution relied mainly on eyewitness testimony that contained variations and inconsistencies, including differences from prior statements.
- Jay presented an alibi defense.
- The referee sustained the petition’s allegations and stated reasons for the findings.
- Jay applied for rehearing under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 558, arguing credibility was central and the evidence did not prove the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A juvenile court judge reviewed the transcript, denied a de novo rehearing, adopted the referee’s findings, and adjudicated Jay a ward of the court.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires a juvenile court judge to conduct a de novo hearing with live testimony (rather than transcript review) before adopting a referee’s findings when witness credibility is significant.
2. Whether allowing adjudication based on a referee’s fact-finding with transcript-based judicial review denies juveniles equal protection compared to adult criminal defendants who receive judge or jury fact-finding.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the wardship order.
- The court held the referee-plus-rehearing procedure, including transcript-based judicial review, is consistent with due process.
- The court held the different fact-finding structure for juveniles does not violate equal protection because it is rationally related to legitimate purposes of the juvenile system.
- The court interpreted § 558 to require the judge’s independent evaluation of the record before adopting or rejecting the referee’s findings.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural due process requires fundamental fairness, not a single mandated tribunal structure for fact-finding in juvenile proceedings.
- When a referee hearing is reported and transcribed, a judge may deny a de novo rehearing and adopt the referee’s findings after independently examining the transcript and making an independent determination of the facts.
- Due process does not categorically require that credibility determinations be made only by a decisionmaker who personally observed live testimony, where a reliable transcript record exists and the judge performs independent review.
- Different adjudicatory procedures for juveniles and adults do not violate equal protection if the distinction is rationally related to legitimate state objectives in juvenile justice.

## Conclusion

California’s statutory scheme permitting initial fact-finding by a juvenile court referee, followed by a judge’s discretionary rehearing decision based on independent transcript review when the proceedings are transcribed, is constitutionally permissible under due process and equal protection, even in cases turning on witness credibility.


In re Jay J., 66 Cal. App. 3d 631, 136 Cal. Rptr. 125 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)