# Ramona R. v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · January 28, 1985 · 37 Cal. 3d 802

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547488

## Case

- **Full name:** RAMONA R., a Minor, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 28, 1985
- **Citations:** 37 Cal. 3d 802; 210 Cal. Rptr. 204; 693 P.2d 789; 1985 Cal. LEXIS 235
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Grodin
- **Judges:** Mosk, Grodin
- **Cited by:** 108 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547488

## Opinion text

GRODIN, J., Concurring.
I understand the majority to hold that California’s privilege against self-incrimination is violated unless a juvenile is provided with use immunity for statements he makes to a probation officer or testimony he gives at a fitness hearing. To reach that conclusion, we must necessarily find that a juvenile’s testimony is compelled by the nature of the fitness proceeding. The proceeding combines relaxed evidentiary rules, a relatively low burden of proof, and, most importantly, a presumption of unfitness. Taken together, these factors create a substantial likelihood that *812 the juvenile will be found unfit unless he testifies in his own behalf. I believe that this risk of an adverse judgment is so great that it constitutes a compulsive sanction against exercise of the self-incrimination privilege. For these reasons, which I believe are implicit in the majority opinion, I concur.
The petition of real party in interest for a rehearing was denied April 4, 1985. The opinion was modified to read as printed above. Lucas, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547488. Public record. Not legal advice.