## Facts

- The People filed a juvenile delinquency (wardship) petition under Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 alleging that Jesse McM., age 17, committed two counts of sodomy (Penal Code § 286) and two counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child (Penal Code § 288) involving two boys, ages nine and 10.
- Jesse denied the allegations.
- The juvenile court conducted a jurisdictional hearing and found the amended petition’s allegations true.
- The court declared Jesse a ward of the court and committed him to the California Youth Authority for a maximum term of five years.
- Jesse appealed. He did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence; instead, he argued the jurisdictional findings should be reversed because the court did not grant a public hearing.
- During the jurisdictional hearing, Jesse’s counsel requested a public hearing after the proceedings had already begun and after one of the child victims had testified.
- The request was not made jointly by Jesse and a parent at the outset of the proceeding.
- Although the courtroom was otherwise closed, the juvenile court allowed a friend chosen by Jesse’s mother to remain with her in the courtroom.

## Issues

1. Does a minor in a juvenile wardship proceeding have a constitutional right to a public trial comparable to the Sixth Amendment right in adult criminal prosecutions?
2. Under Welfare and Institutions Code § 346, did the juvenile court err by denying the request to open the hearing to the public when the request was made by counsel after the hearing began rather than by the minor and parent in a timely manner?
3. Did the juvenile court violate Welfare and Institutions Code § 346 by allowing Jesse’s mother’s friend to remain in the courtroom during an otherwise closed hearing?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the wardship order and commitment.
- The court held that a minor does not have a constitutional right to a public trial in juvenile court proceedings.
- The court concluded that § 346 did not require reversal where the request for a public hearing was not properly and timely made as contemplated by the statute.
- The court also rejected the claim that permitting the mother’s friend to remain violated § 346 or converted the proceeding into an improper public hearing.

## Legal Principles

- The constitutional public-trial guarantee applicable to criminal prosecutions does not automatically apply in juvenile wardship proceedings, which are treated differently from adult criminal cases.
- California Supreme Court authority (including *In re Mitchell P.*) permits different procedural treatment of minors charged with juvenile misconduct and adults charged with crimes.
- Welfare and Institutions Code § 346 generally keeps juvenile hearings closed to the public unless the minor and the minor’s parent affirmatively request a public hearing; the timing and manner of the request matter.
- Section 346 also allows the juvenile court discretion to permit attendance by individuals with a direct and legitimate interest in the case, and allowing limited attendance does not itself make the proceeding “public.”

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed because Jesse had no constitutional entitlement to a public juvenile hearing, his request to open the courtroom was not made in the timely and statutory manner required by Welfare and Institutions Code § 346, and the juvenile court did not violate § 346 by allowing the minor’s mother to have a supportive friend present during the otherwise closed proceeding.


In re Jesse McM., 164 Cal. Rptr. 199 (1980)