Reported / Citable
Background
J.G., a minor, was part of a group of males who stole items from the renter of an Airbnb home and damaged the home and the renter's car during two incidents on July 30, 2023. Although at least six other males may have been involved, only J.G. was charged. He admitted carrying a loaded firearm on his person and assault by means of force, and the remaining counts were dismissed with facts and restitution open as to all counts. After a contested restitution hearing, the juvenile court ordered J.G. to pay $6,294.01 in restitution to Johan Hernandez, the full amount claimed by the victim.
J.G. appealed, arguing the award was unsupported by substantial evidence, that the January 1, 2025 amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6(b)(3) required apportionment among all group members even though only he was charged, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeal filed its opinion on September 29, 2026, rejecting the first and third contentions but reversing the restitution award and remanding so the juvenile court could consider apportionment. On October 19, 2026, the court issued an order modifying that opinion and denying rehearing, expressly stating there was no change in the judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that section 730.6(b)(3), as amended by Assembly Bill No. 1186 effective January 1, 2025, prohibits joint and several liability for minors and requires apportionment based on each minor's percentage of responsibility or fault. Because the juvenile court issued its order on March 4, 2025, after the amendment took effect, the amended statute applied. Rejecting the juvenile court's view that apportionment reaches only charged co-offenders, the court found the statutory language contains no such limit, and pre-amendment law and legislative history confirmed that courts may consider the responsibility of all culpable parties, whether charged or not. The court also found substantial evidence supported the restitution award under an aiding and abetting theory, because J.G. stipulated to the police report as the factual basis for his admission and the evidence showed he tried to start a fight, carried a gun, and returned the stolen chain. The ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed, and the judgment was reversed and remanded.
The October 19, 2026 order made eight modifications without changing the judgment. It revised the publication footnote to certify the opinion for publication with the exception of parts A, B, and D of the Discussion; changed 'convicted' and 'conviction' to 'adjudicated' and 'adjudication' in the first-incident restitution paragraph; changed 'charged or convicted' to 'charged or adjudicated' in the page 19 apportionment discussion paragraph; modified two sentences on page 12 and changed 'use of' to 'carrying' a gun; and added footnote 4, holding that the burden-of-proof issue was fairly included in the apportionment issue raised on appeal, and footnote 5, addressing the Division Three decision In re X.G., in light of which the court declined to reconsider its holding. The court denied rehearing, noting that J.G.'s petition conflicted with positions he took in his own appellate briefs.
Key Takeaways
- California's amended juvenile restitution statute requires courts to apportion fault among all potentially responsible parties, including those never charged with a crime.
- A minor can be held liable for restitution under an aiding and abetting theory based on his own acts and mental state, which does not violate the prohibition on joint and several liability.
- Once the victim makes a prima facie showing of economic losses, the minor bears the burden of proving that other participants should share responsibility for those losses.
- The court modified its opinion—including narrowing publication certification to exclude parts A, B, and D of the Discussion—and denied rehearing without changing the judgment.
- The court admonished the People for factual misstatements in their brief that lacked record citations, emphasizing the higher standard applicable to attorneys representing the state.
Why It Matters
This decision provides an early published interpretation of the 2025 amendment to section 730.6(b)(3), establishing that juvenile courts must consider the culpability of uncharged participants when apportioning restitution. It aligns juvenile restitution apportionment with the approach used for non-economic damages under Civil Code section 1431.2, which permits fault allocation among all tortfeasors whether or not they are parties to the action, and it confirms that the minor seeking apportionment bears the burden of proving other participants' fault.
The modification order's footnote 5 also addresses In re X.G., a companion Division Three decision on the same statutory provision, signaling developing appellate consensus on the scope of juvenile restitution apportionment in California.