Thursday, September 17, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Minor ‘Possessed Firearm’ by Controlling One Who Fired It
Opinion Says Footage Showing 17-Year-Old Walked in Front of Group, Looked Back at Shooter Before Shots Fired, Together With Other Evidence, Was Sufficient to Show Constructive Possession, Drawing Dissent
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that there was sufficient proof to support allegations that a minor was in possession of a firearm that was used in a October 2024 shooting at the San Diego State University campus based on video surveillance depicting actions consistent with his taking a “leadership” role over the group from which shots were fired even if there were no allegations that he ever personally handled the gun, drawing dissent.
Tuesday’s unpublished opinion, authored by Justice Terry B. O’Rourke and joined in by Presiding Justice Judith McConnell, highlights that the minor was seen huddling with the actual shooter and a third teenager, all purported members of the East Side San Diego gang, shortly before the shooting, he walked out ahead of the other two, and looked back just before the shots were hired. Based on the circumstances surrounding the shooting, O’Rourke declared:
“[S]ubstantial evidence in the record supported the juvenile court’s findings that [the minor] knew that [the shooter] intended to shoot at the victims,…and that his conduct actually aided [the shooter’s] attempted murders….The same substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that [the minor] constructively possessed the firearm and ammunition, through his control and direction over [the shooter].”
Justice Truc T. Do disagreed as to the possession allegations, saying:
“The People argue: [the minor] was ‘an extremely active member’ of the East Side San Diego gang and ‘the eldest of the group he was with’ during the shooting. They assert that ‘[t]hese facts, in addition to the deference shown to him by [the other two], as well as [his] own physical displays commanding the members of his group, all show that [Jonathan] exercised authority over the group,’ and [the shooter] specifically. (Italics added.) Perhaps. But ‘[w]hat is required, and what prosecutors failed to show here, is that [the minor] exercised dominion and control over the gun.”
Halloween Shooting
The shooting occurred during the afternoon hours of Oct. 31, 2024. A then-17-year-old minor, identified only as “Jonathan R.,” and two other, younger teenagers, referred to in the opinion as “O.C.” and “E.A.,” were hanging out near a bus stop on the campus with a few other youngsters when two passersby appeared to catch their attention.
Surveillance footage shows the trio left the bus stop, with Jonathan R. taking the lead, and headed toward the area where the other parties had congregated. The video then captures O.C. lifting his shirt before momentarily conferring with Jonathan R. and E.A.; Jonathan R. is then seen walking away from the location.
According to the opinion, O.C. followed suit and reached back toward E.A., who made motions consistent with taking shots after Jonathan R. looked back in his direction. A victim, identified as “D.I.,” was hit in the abdomen and the forearm, but he refused to answer any questions about what happened to the police or during the ensuing court proceedings.
Prosecutors filed a juvenile wardship petition against Jonathan R., asserting allegations including attempted murder, bringing a loaded firearm on campus, and possession of a firearm by a minor. After evidentiary hearings, San Diego Superior Court Judge Robert Trentacosta sustained the petition, and found true a gang allegation, in March 2025; the judge ordered the minor committed to a secure youth facility.
Noting that “[t]he standard of review governing sufficiency of the evidence claims in adult criminal cases is the same as in juvenile cases,” O’Rourke opined:
“We conclude that substantial evidence supported the court’s findings that Jonathan aided and abetted the attempted murders of D.I. and [and his companion] and constructively possessed the firearm and ammunition that E.A. used to shoot the victims.”
Video Evidence
Based on the surveillance-video footage, he opined:
“Viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings, those videos support the court’s interpretations of Jonathan’s actions on the day of the shooting. The videos support the juvenile court’s findings that Jonathan led E.A. and O.C. towards the rivals and waved the rest of the group back. Based on testimony that there was ‘strength in numbers,’ Jonathan’s waving back the rest of the group allowed a factfinder to conclude that Jonathan knew the confrontation ahead would not require a large group, because one of the three was armed….”
The jurist continued:
“A fact finder could also find that later, after O.C. lifted up his shirt, Jonathan ‘huddled’ with O.C. and E.A. After that E.A. held out his hand as if to take something from O.C. A factfinder could conclude that this series of actions reflected O.C. displaying the firearm, Jonathan deciding E.A. would take the shot, and O.C. duly handing the gun to E.A. As Jonathan turned to leave, O.C. followed, then Jonathan looked briefly back at E.A., after which E.A. started shooting. A factfinder could conclude that Jonathan’s glance gave E.A. the encouragement, or direction, to start shooting.”
Noting that a detective testified at the hearing on the petition that the firearms are frequently shared among members of a gang, he concluded:
“There is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s conclusion that Jonathan exercised constructive possession over the weapon through his control over O.C. and E.A.”
Dissenting Opinion
Saying that she concurs “in all parts of the majority opinion” except “as to its affirmance of the juvenile court’s true findings” on the possession-related allegations, Do asserted:
“I agree with Jonathan R. that the People failed to present sufficient evidence that he constructively possessed the gun used by E.A. to support these counts.”
She remarked:
“The People rely heavily on the workings of a criminal street gang…in an attempt to tie Jonathan to E.A.’s gun. They argue, without any citation to the record that, based on his status as the eldest and leader of the group, ‘Had [Jonathan] wanted to take the shots himself, he could have taken actual possession of the gun….’ These claims appear to be based on little more than ‘speculation…’ which does not satisfy the substantial evidence standard.”
The justice added:
“Ample evidence certainly supported the juvenile court’s true findings that Jonathan aided and abetted E.A. in two counts of attempted murder….Jonathan’s specific intent to aid and abet the attempted murder shows he had knowledge of E.A.’s gun and the intent to aid and abet E.A.’s use.”
However, she argued:
“But constructive possession requires proof of a different set of facts, namely the right to exercise dominion and control or joint possession of the gun. The People’s reliance on Jonathan’s control over his fellow gang members and the unsupported claim of shared gang ownership of E.A.’s gun was speculative and simply did not meet the required quantum of proof in this particular case. Consequently, the juvenile court’s true findings on counts 3 through 6, and the associated enhancements on those counts, should be reversed and the matter should be remanded for a new dispositional hearing.”
The case is In re Jonathan R., D085819.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company