Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

In re V.V.

Supreme Court of California
51 Cal. App. 4th 1020 (2011)


Facts

Three minors, including V.V. (defendant) and J.H. (defendant), climbed a brush-covered hill behind a residential neighborhood. V.V. lit a firecracker, and J.H. threw it down the hill. The third minor decided not to participate due to concern that the act could result in injury. The firecracker caused a fire that burned five acres of brush. Upon being interviewed by the police, J.H. admitted to taking six firecrackers up the hill, and both J.H. and V.V. admitted to lighting one firecracker to make noise. V.V. claimed that their intention was to throw the firecracker to a green part of the brush, which was less likely to ignite, while J.H. claimed that he was aiming for a concrete area. The Los Angeles County district attorney pursued juvenile proceedings against both J.H. and V.V. for arson under California Penal Code section 451 or, alternatively, for the lesser offense of recklessly causing a fire. The juvenile court accepted the allegation of arson and made J.H. and V.V. wards of the state. V.V.’s wardship order was affirmed by one division of the appellate court, while another division of the appellate court reversed J.H.’s order. The two divisions of the appellate court disagreed as to whether intentionally lighting the firecracker and throwing it down the hill was sufficient to satisfy the malice requirement of an arson offense. The Supreme Court of California granted review for both cases.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Chin, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Werdegar, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Kennard, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.