Opinion
MOSK, J.
Tony C., a minor, appeals from two orders adjudging him a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) upon findings that [892]*892he received stolen property (petition “A”) and committed rape by threat of great bodily harm (petition “C”).
Petition “A”
The evidence connecting Tony with the offense alleged in petition “A” was found in a search of his person while he was being booked after his arrest on an unrelated charge. His principal contention is that the evidence was illegally obtained because the police did not have sufficient cause to stop and detain him prior to that arrest. We review the controlling rules.
It is settled that circumstances short of probable cause to make an arrest may justify a police officer stopping and briefly detaining a person for questioning or other limited investigation. (People v. Mickelson (1963) 59 Cal.2d 448, 450 [30 Cal.Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658]; Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 22 [20 L.Ed.2d 889, 906-907, 88 S.Ct. 1868].) Although each case must be decided on its own facts, certain standards for judging the lawfulness of the officer’s conduct have emerged from our decisions. (See People v. Harris (1975) 15 Cal.3d 384, 388-389 [124 Cal.Rptr. 536, 540 P.2d 632]; People v. Flores (1974) 12 Cal.3d 85, 91 [115 Cal.Rptr. 225, 524 P.2d 353]; People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788, 797-798 [108 Cal.Rptr. 852, 511 P.2d 1204]; Irwin v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 423, 426-427 [82 Cal.Rptr. 484, 462 P.2d 12]; People v. Moore (1968) 69 Cal.2d 674, 682-683 [72 Cal.Rptr. 800, 446 P.2d 800]; People v. One 1960 Cadillac Coupe (1964) 62 Cal.2d 92, 95-96 [41 Cal.Rptr. 290, 396 P.2d 706]; People v. Mickelson (1963) supra, 59 Cal.2d 448, 450-452; People v. Simon (1955) 45 Cal.2d 645, 650 [290 P.2d 531].)1 The guiding principle, as in all issues arising under the Fourth Amendment and under the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19; see People v. Triggs (1973) 8 Cal.3d 884, 891-892, fn. 5 [106 Cal.Rptr. 408, 506 P.2d 232]), is “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 19 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 904].) Because of the limited scope of that invasion in the present context, it need not be supported by the actual belief in guilt required to arrest, book, and jail an individual on a named criminal charge. (People v. Harris, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 389.)
[893]*893Yet the interest at stake is far from insignificant: it is the right of every person to enjoy the use of public streets, buildings, parks, and other conveniences without unwarranted interference or harassment by agents of the law. (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Kiefer) (1970) 3 Cal.3d 807, 815 [91 Cal.Rptr. 729, 478 P.2d 449, 45 A.L.R.3d 559], and cases cited.) “A police officer may not use the authority of his uniform and badge to go around promiscuously bothering citizens.” (Batts v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 435, 439 [100 Cal.Rptr. 181].)
Balancing these factors, the courts have concluded that in order to justify an investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. Not only must he subjectively entertain such a suspicion, but it must be objectively reasonable for him to do so: the facts must be such as would cause any reasonable police officer in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his training and experience (People v. Superior Court (Kiefer) supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 827), to suspect the same criminal activity and the same involvement by the person in question.2 The corollary to this rule, of course, is that an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith. (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 22 [20 L.Ed.2d at pp. 906-907].)
The appellant herein also relies on language in Irwin to the effect that “Where the events are as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity, a detention based on those events is unlawful.” (Irwin v. Superior Court, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 427.) Although some courts have invoked this language in invalidating a stop or detention (e.g., People v. Evans (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 924, 931-932 [134 Cal.Rptr. 436]; People v. Lathan (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 911, 918 [113 Cal.Rptr. 648]), a line of decisions beginning with People v. Superior Court (Acosta) (1971) 20 [894]*894Cal.App.3d 1085 [98 Cal.Rptr. 161], has sharply criticized the statement on various grounds and has declined to follow it as a rule of law. (See People v. Moreno (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 962, 969 [134 Cal.Rptr. 322], and cases cited.) Upon analysis it appears the statement is not directly supported by the authorities cited in Irwin (1 Cal.3d at p. 427), and moreover was not necessary to the decision therein: Irwin’s detention was based totally on a hunch, and the record permitted no reasonable suspicion whatever of criminal activity on his part. (Id., at pp. 427-428.) His conduct “was not merely ‘as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity,’ it was only consistent with innocent activity.” (Barber v. Superior Court (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 326, 330 [106 Cal.Rptr. 304].) Nor has this court applied the Irwin dictum in any subsequent decision involving an investigative stop or detention; our sole references to it have been as examples—and therefore also dicta—in cases dealing with probable cause to arrest and search. (People v. Triggs (1973) supra, 8 Cal.3d 884, 895; Remers v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 659, 664 [87 Cal.Rptr. 202, 470 P.2d 11]; see also People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 692 [108 Cal.Rptr. 809, 511 P.2d 1161].)
Reconsidering the matter, we are of the view that the Irwin dictum cannot be squared with the rule that a reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity will justify a temporary stop or detention. Under that standard, if the circumstances are “consistent with criminal activity,” they permit—even demand—an investigation: the public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances “in the proper discharge of the officer’s duties.” (People v. Flores, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion
MOSK, J.
Tony C., a minor, appeals from two orders adjudging him a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) upon findings that [892]*892he received stolen property (petition “A”) and committed rape by threat of great bodily harm (petition “C”).
Petition “A”
The evidence connecting Tony with the offense alleged in petition “A” was found in a search of his person while he was being booked after his arrest on an unrelated charge. His principal contention is that the evidence was illegally obtained because the police did not have sufficient cause to stop and detain him prior to that arrest. We review the controlling rules.
It is settled that circumstances short of probable cause to make an arrest may justify a police officer stopping and briefly detaining a person for questioning or other limited investigation. (People v. Mickelson (1963) 59 Cal.2d 448, 450 [30 Cal.Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658]; Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 22 [20 L.Ed.2d 889, 906-907, 88 S.Ct. 1868].) Although each case must be decided on its own facts, certain standards for judging the lawfulness of the officer’s conduct have emerged from our decisions. (See People v. Harris (1975) 15 Cal.3d 384, 388-389 [124 Cal.Rptr. 536, 540 P.2d 632]; People v. Flores (1974) 12 Cal.3d 85, 91 [115 Cal.Rptr. 225, 524 P.2d 353]; People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788, 797-798 [108 Cal.Rptr. 852, 511 P.2d 1204]; Irwin v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 423, 426-427 [82 Cal.Rptr. 484, 462 P.2d 12]; People v. Moore (1968) 69 Cal.2d 674, 682-683 [72 Cal.Rptr. 800, 446 P.2d 800]; People v. One 1960 Cadillac Coupe (1964) 62 Cal.2d 92, 95-96 [41 Cal.Rptr. 290, 396 P.2d 706]; People v. Mickelson (1963) supra, 59 Cal.2d 448, 450-452; People v. Simon (1955) 45 Cal.2d 645, 650 [290 P.2d 531].)1 The guiding principle, as in all issues arising under the Fourth Amendment and under the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19; see People v. Triggs (1973) 8 Cal.3d 884, 891-892, fn. 5 [106 Cal.Rptr. 408, 506 P.2d 232]), is “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 19 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 904].) Because of the limited scope of that invasion in the present context, it need not be supported by the actual belief in guilt required to arrest, book, and jail an individual on a named criminal charge. (People v. Harris, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 389.)
[893]*893Yet the interest at stake is far from insignificant: it is the right of every person to enjoy the use of public streets, buildings, parks, and other conveniences without unwarranted interference or harassment by agents of the law. (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Kiefer) (1970) 3 Cal.3d 807, 815 [91 Cal.Rptr. 729, 478 P.2d 449, 45 A.L.R.3d 559], and cases cited.) “A police officer may not use the authority of his uniform and badge to go around promiscuously bothering citizens.” (Batts v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 435, 439 [100 Cal.Rptr. 181].)
Balancing these factors, the courts have concluded that in order to justify an investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. Not only must he subjectively entertain such a suspicion, but it must be objectively reasonable for him to do so: the facts must be such as would cause any reasonable police officer in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his training and experience (People v. Superior Court (Kiefer) supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 827), to suspect the same criminal activity and the same involvement by the person in question.2 The corollary to this rule, of course, is that an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith. (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 22 [20 L.Ed.2d at pp. 906-907].)
The appellant herein also relies on language in Irwin to the effect that “Where the events are as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity, a detention based on those events is unlawful.” (Irwin v. Superior Court, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 427.) Although some courts have invoked this language in invalidating a stop or detention (e.g., People v. Evans (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 924, 931-932 [134 Cal.Rptr. 436]; People v. Lathan (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 911, 918 [113 Cal.Rptr. 648]), a line of decisions beginning with People v. Superior Court (Acosta) (1971) 20 [894]*894Cal.App.3d 1085 [98 Cal.Rptr. 161], has sharply criticized the statement on various grounds and has declined to follow it as a rule of law. (See People v. Moreno (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 962, 969 [134 Cal.Rptr. 322], and cases cited.) Upon analysis it appears the statement is not directly supported by the authorities cited in Irwin (1 Cal.3d at p. 427), and moreover was not necessary to the decision therein: Irwin’s detention was based totally on a hunch, and the record permitted no reasonable suspicion whatever of criminal activity on his part. (Id., at pp. 427-428.) His conduct “was not merely ‘as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity,’ it was only consistent with innocent activity.” (Barber v. Superior Court (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 326, 330 [106 Cal.Rptr. 304].) Nor has this court applied the Irwin dictum in any subsequent decision involving an investigative stop or detention; our sole references to it have been as examples—and therefore also dicta—in cases dealing with probable cause to arrest and search. (People v. Triggs (1973) supra, 8 Cal.3d 884, 895; Remers v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 659, 664 [87 Cal.Rptr. 202, 470 P.2d 11]; see also People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 692 [108 Cal.Rptr. 809, 511 P.2d 1161].)
Reconsidering the matter, we are of the view that the Irwin dictum cannot be squared with the rule that a reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity will justify a temporary stop or detention. Under that standard, if the circumstances are “consistent with criminal activity,” they permit—even demand—an investigation: the public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances “in the proper discharge of the officer’s duties.” (People v. Flores, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 91.) No reason appears for a contrary result simply because the circumstances are also “consistent with lawful activity,” as may often be the case. The possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Indeed, the principal function of his investigation is to resolve that very ambiguity and establish whether the activity is in fact legal or illegal—to “enable the police to quickly determine whether they should allow the suspect to go about his business or hold him to answer charges.” (People v. Manis (1969) supra, 268 Cal.App.2d 653, 665.) The citizen’s undoubted interest in freedom from abuse of this procedure is protected —so far as it is within the law’s power to do so—by the correlative rule that no stop or detention is permissible when the circumstances are not reasonably “consistent with criminal activity” and the investigation is therefore based on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch. Because the Irwin dictum is thus in conflict with the settled standards for dealing with this sensitive problem, it is disapproved.
[895]*895The Attorney General invokes yet another rale, contending that the intrusion here challenged was not a “stop” or “detention” but merely a “contact” and therefore required no justification at all. While there is no talismanic import in these terms, they are convenient labels for identifying a distinction that the courts have correctly recognized: “Street encounters between citizens and police officers are incredibly rich in diversity. They range from wholly friendly exchanges of pleasantries or mutually useful information to hostile confrontations of armed men involving arrests, or injuries, or loss of life.” (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 13 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 901].) Some of these encounters are subject to the foregoing rules, others are obviously not. The question, of course, is where to draw the line.
Again each case must be decided on its own facts, but certain guidelines have developed. It has been said that a detention occurs if the suspect is not free to leave at will—if he is kept in the officer’s presence by physical restraint, threat of force, or assertion of authority. (See, e.g., Restani v. Superior Court (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 189, 197 [91 Cal.Rptr. 429].) But the definition is underinclusive: actual or threatened physical restraints are the characteristics of a full-blown arrest (Pen. Code, § 835), and an officer will frequently use more subtle methods to detain a suspect whom he wishes simply to question about possible criminal activity. The definition is also overinclusive: either through fear or respect, many persons who are not in fact under detention nevertheless do not feel free to leave at will when a uniformed police officer indicates a desire to talk with them.
A more fruitful approach focuses on the purpose of the intrusion itself. If the individual is stopped or detained because the officer suspects he may be personally involved in some criminal activity, his Fourth Amendment rights are implicated and he is entitled to the safeguards of the rules set forth above. But similar safeguards are not required if the officer acts for other proper reasons. Such reasons are obviously too many and varied to recite, but they may be grouped in at least two general categories: (1) the officer may wish to question the person not as a suspect but merely as a witness to a crime, or (2) the officer may be engaged in one of “those innumerable miscellaneous tasks which society calls upon police to do which have nothing to do with the detection of crime” (Batts v. Superior Court (1972) supra, 23 Cal.App.3d 435, 438), such as giving aid to persons in distress, mediating domestic quarrels, assisting the elderly or the disabled, furnishing traffic advice or [896]*896directions, and generally preserving the peace and protecting persons from harm or annoyance. (See id., at pp. 438-439.)3
Applying these rules to the facts of the case at,,bar, we begin with the initial stop. The sole witness on the issue was Officer Thomas Joy of the California Highway Patrol. At 12:45 in the afternoon of Tuesday, February 10, 1976, he was on patrol in his police vehicle in a residential area of the City of La Puente, Los Angeles County. While proceeding north on Mayland Avenue he noticed Tony—a 13-year-old black youth—walking with another black youth along the sidewalk of Rath Street towards its intersection with Mayland. Officer Joy drove two blocks north on the latter street and made a U-tum. When he returned to the intersection Tony’s companion was standing on the corner but the officer could not see Tony himself. Again Officer Joy drove past, went two blocks south to Ragus Street, made a left turn followed by another U-tum, and came back to Mayland. By this time the two youths were walking south along the sidewalk of Mayland and had almost reached Ragus. Without further surveillance Officer Joy pulled over, stopped the youths, and began questioning them as to their identities, their home addresses, and the purpose of their presence in the area.
Contrary to the Attorney General’s contention, the officer’s intrusion in these circumstances was more than a mere “contact” as just defined. At the hearing he did not claim that he desired to interview the two youths as witnesses to a crime, nor that they had appeared to be lost, in distress, or otherwise in need of his unsolicited assistance. Rather, when asked for his reasons for stopping the youths, he testified:
“Well, it was during school hours. They were both of school age. And they should have both been in school, number one.
“And number two, I’m very aware that juveniles do commit crimes when they’re supposed to be in.school and they’re not.”
The witness offered two other justifications in his testimony. He related that on the day before the incident he had learned informally that several burglaries had been reported in the Mayland-Rath area and “three male blacks” were being sought in connection therewith. And he added that [897]*897when he drove past the Mayland-Rath intersection the second time and saw only Tony’s companion, he “thought possibly” the latter was acting as a lookout while Tony was committing a burglary nearby.
We draw two conclusions from this testimony. First, it is clear the officers stopped Tony and his companion with the express purpose of investigating their possible involvement in criminal activity; accordingly, the legality of that stop must be judged by the rules reviewed herein-above. Second, under those rules the stop was wholly unwarranted. There is nothing suspicious in the sight of two school children walking along the sidewalk during the noon hour: they may be going home for lunch, or on their way to a store, a playground, or a friend’s house. Even if the encounter had taken place during the variety of present-day school hours, that fact would have had no sinister significance: it is not reasonable to suspect, as did Officer Joy, that any minor who is proceeding along a public street during school hours is ipso facto bent on committing crimes. Such speculation ignores the many circumstances in which a student may properly be away from school premises during classroom hours—e.g., on an errand for a school official, going to a doctor’s or dentist’s appointment, in transit to an athletic event, or returning home because of injury or illness. Even if the absence were unauthorized, Officer Joy’s theory would treat every minor truant as a suspected thief, burglar, or worse; yet the prosecution made no attempt to prove, by statistics or otherwise, the validity of so startling an inference.4
Nor did the situation become suspicious simply because Officer Joy had been told that several burglaries had occurred in the neighborhood. It is true that a number of decisions have given weight to the fact that the stop or detention took place in a “high crime area.” (See, e.g., Flores v. Superior Court (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 219, 223 [94 Cal.Rptr. 496].) But the justification is so easily subject to abuse that this fact alone should not be deemed sufficient to support the intrusion. A day-old burglaiy report does not transform a residential neighborhood into a no man’s land in which any passerby is fair game for a roving police interrogation: “To hold that police officers should in the proper discharge of their duties detain and question all persons in that location . . . would for practical purposes involve an abrogation of the rule requiring substantial circumstances to justify the detention and questioning of persons on the street.” (People v. Moore (1968) supra, 69 Cal.2d 674, 683; accord, Cunha v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 352, 357 & fn. 1 [85 Cal.Rptr. 160, 466 P.2d 704].)
[898]*898Moreover, in the case at bar Officer Joy had been informed only that the suspects in the prior burglaries were “three male blacks” of unspecified ages. Such a vague description could not reasonably have led him to suspect these two black minors were the missing culprits.5 To hold otherwise would authorize the police to stop and question every black male, young or old, in an area in which a few black suspects were being sought. Such wholesale intrusion into the privacy of a significant portion of our citizenry would be both socially intolerable and constitutionally impermissible.6
Finally, nothing is added to the equation by the fact that Tony and his companion appeared to briefly part company during Officer Joy’s surveillance of their movements. In the circumstances it was highly unlikely the two youths were then in the act of committing a burglary: a marked police car had just driven across their field of vision, the car returned a few moments later, and Tony’s companion exhibited no reported signs of nervousness or concern at its sudden reappearance. Much more is needed to reasonably suspect that a person merely standing on a street comer in broad daylight is acting as a “lookout” for a partner in crime.
In short, viewed either singly or collectively the circumstances known to Officer Joy did not support a reasonable suspicion that Tony and his companion were involved in criminal activity when he observed them walking along the sidewalk. Rather, as the officer testified with regard to his “lookout” theory, at most he “thought possibly” that the two youths might have been engaged in some kind of larcenous conduct. The ensuing investigative stop was thus based entirely on a combination of hunch and curiosity, and hence was no less unlawful than the intrusions we condemned in Irwin, Moore, and One 1960 Cadillac Coupe.
[899]*899Because the initial stop was improper, we need not reach Tony’s contention that his rights were again violated when, after several minutes of questioning, he and his companion were detained for an additional five to ten minutes while a deputy sheriff drove to the scene for further investigation in response to a radio call by Officer Joy. Upon arrival the deputy sheriff recognized Tony’s name and arrested him on an outstanding charge, and in the subsequent booking search certain property found on his person was determined to have been stolen in a burglary earlier the same day. The offense alleged in petition “A” was the receipt of that property. (Pen. Code, § 496.)
It follows that the evidence against Tony was the direct product of exploitation of the unlawful investigative stop, and should have been suppressed. A timely motion to that effect was made and denied. Because there was no legally admissible evidence to support the order adjudging him a ward of the juvenile court under petition “A,” the order must be reversed. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 701; see In re Michael V. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 676, 680-681 [111 Cal.Rptr. 681, 517 P.2d 1145].)
Petition “C”
Tony does not deny that he committed the offense alleged in petition “C,” i.e., rape by threat of great bodily harm. (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. 3.) His contentions relate instead to the proof of his capacity (1) to commit the crime and (2) to appreciate its wrongfulness. We begin with the latter point.
Penal Code section 26, subdivision One, declares that minors under the age of 14 are presumed incapable of committing a crime in the absence of “clear proof’ that at the time of the act “they knew its wrongfulness.” In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855, 862-867 [83 Cal.Rptr. 671, 464 P.2d 127], held this rule applicable in proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 to declare a minor a ward of the juvenile court by reason of his violation of a law.
In the case at bar Tony’s mother testified at the hearing on petition “A” with regard to his knowledge of the wrongfulness of taking another’s property without permission. Several weeks later the same juvenile court referee conducted the hearing on petition “C,” and Tony’s mother testified as to her son’s knowledge of the wrongfulness of having forcible sexual intercourse with another person. At the close of the hearing the [900]*900referee said, “Between the testimony of the mother at this time and the latter time on the Gladys R. issue, I think the burden has been met.”
Tony contends that by taking judicial notice of his mother’s testimony at the prior hearing the referee erroneously relied at least in part on hearsay evidence in ruling on petition “C.” (Evid. Code, § 1200.) We agree. Contrary to the Attorney General’s claim, the referee’s finding on the Gladys R. issue on petition “A” was not res judicata on petition “C” because the elements of the two crimes are different: a minor may know it is wrong to steal without also knowing it is wrong to engage in conduct that the law denominates as rape.
On the record of this case, however, the error was not prejudicial. For the reason just stated, the challenged hearsay testimony was essentially irrelevant to the Gladys R. issue under petition “C.” Moreover, evidence properly admitted at the hearing on the latter petition amply demonstrated that at the time of committing the rape Tony had full knowledge of its wrongfulness.
It would manifestly frustrate the intent of Penal Code section 26 to infer such knowledge from the bare commission of the act itself. Yet for this purpose reference may properly be made to the attendant circumstances of the crime, such as its preparation, the particular method of its commission, and its concealment. Reliance on circumstantial evidence is often inevitable when, as here, the issue is a state of mind such as knowledge. (See, e.g., Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 415, fn. 13 [131 Cal.Rptr. 69, 551 P.2d 389].) We recognized as much in Gladys R. when we concluded that a minor under 14 can be declared a ward on this ground only if his “age. experience, knowledge, and conduct” clearly prove his awareness that he had violated a criminal law. (1 Cal.3d at p. 867.)
Such evidence was introduced in the case at bar. At the time of committing the rape Tony was only eight weeks short of his fourteenth birthday.7 The victim, an 18-year-old married woman, was walking along the sidewalk of a large, four-lane street at 8 o’clock in the evening. Tony seized her from behind, thrust a knife with a six- to eight-inch blade against her neck, and pushed her up against a wall. Keeping his arm around her shoulder and the knife against her neck, he then compelled [901]*901her to walk about half a block with him and turn into a small dead-end street. There he made her climb over a fence into the yard of a residence and lie down. Still holding the knife at her throat, he lay on top of her, forcibly pulled down her pants and underclothing, and entered her with his penis. After several minutes of intercourse he climaxed and withdrew. As he got up he asked her if she was going to call the police. He then took some money from her purse, climbed back over the fence, and ran off.
The facts are uncontradicted, and their implications are equally plain. Tony’s constant use of the threat of deadly force demonstrates that he knew his victim would not submit to sexual intercourse without being exposed to great bodily harm. His conduct in taking her to a secluded location behind a fence on a dead-end street shows he was aware that he had to accomplish his intended deed in private in order to minimize the risk of detection and punishment. And his act of asking his victim if she intended to call the police, followed by his flight from the scene, manifested both knowledge of illegality and consciousness of guilt. Taken together, these facts constitute clear—even overwhelming—proof that throughout the attack Tony well knew the wrongfulness of his conduct within the meaning of Penal Code section 26.
Finally, Tony contends that his “physical ability to accomplish penetration” was not “proved as an independent fact, and beyond a reasonable doubt,” as required by Penal Code section 262.8 In the 106 years since section 262 was enacted, no reported decision discussed the method of complying with this statute, i.e., how the fact in issue was to be made the subject of “independent” proof. As to all future cases the question is now moot: on March 9, 1978, the Governor signed into law an urgency measure, passed unanimously by both houses of the Legislature, repealing section 262. (Stats. 1978, ch. 29, § 1.) We therefore briefly address the matter for the purpose of this appeal only.
The requirement of former section 262 that the minor’s physical capacity be “proved as an independent fact” meant, we believe, that it be proved independently of the testimony of the rape victim that he committed the crime. But as we hold above in construing section 26, the requirement did not prevent persuasive inferences from being drawn from the attendant circumstances of the crime. In the case at bar the victim was examined by a physician at a hospital shortly after the rape. [902]*902Vaginal smears were taken, and chemical analysis thereof showed the presence of seminal fluid and sperm not more than six hours old. The rape victim had not had sexual relations with any person other than Tony during the 16-hour period preceding the examination. The obvious inference from this evidence is that at the time of the attack Tony had the “physical ability to accomplish penetration.” No more was required to satisfy former section 262.
The order sustaining petition “A” is reversed; the order sustaining petition “C” is affirmed.
Tobriner, J., Clark, J., Richardson, J., Manuel, J., and Newman, J., concurred.