Reported / Citable
Background
J.G., a minor, joined a group that forced its way into an Airbnb rental, stole property, and damaged the home and the renter’s car. J.G. admitted carrying a loaded firearm and assault by means of force. Although at least six other people may have participated, prosecutors charged only J.G.
After a contested hearing, the juvenile court ordered J.G. to pay the renter’s entire claimed economic loss of $6,294.01. J.G. challenged both the proof supporting the amount and the court’s refusal to divide responsibility among the other participants under the 2025 amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that the victim’s invoice, testimony, and police report supplied substantial evidence for the amount of loss. The evidence also supported responsibility on an aiding-and-abetting theory, and J.G. did not produce evidence that repairs or replacement would have cost less.
But the juvenile court used the wrong legal rule when it treated J.G. as solely responsible because no one else had been charged. Section 730.6, subdivision (b)(3), requires a court setting juvenile restitution to consider the culpability of all potentially responsible parties and allocate the minor’s percentage of responsibility. The term co-offenders is not limited to people who were formally charged. The court reversed the full-liability portion of the order and remanded for the juvenile court to consider apportionment.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile restitution award entered after January 1, 2025 must apply the amended apportionment rule in Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6.
- The court must consider all potentially culpable participants, even if prosecutors charged only one minor.
- Victim invoices may establish a prima facie restitution amount when they are detailed, facially credible, and supported by testimony or other evidence.
- A minor may still be responsible as an aider and abettor, but liability must reflect the minor’s allocated share rather than automatic joint and several liability.
Why It Matters
The published portion of the decision gives juvenile courts and counsel concrete guidance on a recent statutory change. Charging decisions no longer define the universe of people whose fault matters when a court allocates restitution. Defense counsel should identify other participants and develop evidence bearing on comparative responsibility at the restitution hearing.
For victims, the ruling preserves full proof of economic loss while changing how much may be assigned to a particular minor. Practitioners should separate evidence establishing the amount of loss from evidence establishing each participant’s percentage of fault.