People v. Donald R.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a reasonable fact finder could infer that a sixteen-year-old boy acted for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal when he exposed his penis to a six-year-old girl and had her touch his penis, based in part on the fact that he was significantly closer to adulthood
• inferring the existence of a requisite state of mind from circumstantial evidence is typically the job of a factfinder
• admonishing trial court for stating it was bound by Rule 23 order in unrelated case
• applying criminal standard to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in juvenile sex offender proceedings
• stating, “a fundamental unfairness results when a trial court, sua sponte, relies on an unpublished order in reaching its decision”
• admonishing trial court for stating it was bound by Rule 23 order in unrelated case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named People v. Donald R.

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• People v. Donald R.
  California Court of Appeal· 1978-09-22· cited 6×
• People v. Donald R.
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2015-04-21· cited 6×
• People v. Donald R.
  California Court of Appeal· 1993-04-16· cited 1×