## Facts

- A Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 petition alleged that Michael B., a nine-year-old, committed burglary (Penal Code § 459) by entering a locked car and taking property.
- The car owner parked and locked his Mercedes at his apartment building; later, the rearview mirror was broken, the antenna bent, and a window vent was forced open, without permission to enter.
- A police officer located Michael in a park, took him into custody, advised him of the rights to silence and counsel, and Michael agreed to speak without counsel.
- At the station, Michael said he and friends went into “three or four” cars on a nearby street; he led the officer to the Mercedes and described breaking the mirror to pry open the window vent, after which a friend unlocked the door.
- Michael stated that cigarettes were taken from the car.
- When asked if he knew right from wrong and that breaking into cars and stealing was wrong, Michael answered “yes”; he added that losing something valuable “didn’t matter” to him because he had never had anything that meant a lot to him.
- The juvenile court sustained the burglary allegation and declared Michael a ward of the court; Michael appealed, challenging proof of capacity under Penal Code § 26.

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 26 required “clear proof” that a nine-year-old understood the wrongfulness of the charged conduct before a Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 wardship adjudication could rest on burglary.
2. Whether a minor’s unelaborated admission to a police officer that he knows “right from wrong” is sufficient, by itself, to satisfy Penal Code § 26’s “clear proof” requirement for a child under fourteen.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order declaring Michael a ward of the court.
- Penal Code § 26’s “clear proof” requirement applies in Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 proceedings.
- The evidence was insufficient to constitute “clear proof” that Michael knew the wrongfulness of his acts at the time of the alleged burglary.
- The only evidence on capacity was the officer’s testimony that Michael answered “yes” to a conclusory question about knowing right from wrong, with no additional substantial evidence tied to Michael’s age, experience, knowledge, and conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Children under fourteen are presumed incapable of committing crimes unless there is “clear proof” that, at the time of the act, they knew its wrongfulness. (Penal Code § 26)
- In juvenile delinquency proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code § 602, the prosecution must prove this Penal Code § 26 capacity element by clear proof, considering the child’s age, experience, knowledge, and conduct.
- A bare admission that the child knows “right from wrong,” without supporting evidence demonstrating an actual understanding of the wrongfulness of the specific conduct, does not satisfy Penal Code § 26, particularly for very young minors.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the wardship adjudication because the record did not contain clear proof that a nine-year-old had the capacity required by Penal Code § 26—knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct—where the only capacity evidence was a conclusory “yes” response to a general right-versus-wrong question.


In re Michael B., 44 Cal. App. 3d 443, 118 Cal. Rptr. 685 (Ct. App. 1975)