Can a judge conduct a new investigation of evidence that went beyond the scope of evidence admitted at trial?

In addition to this claim having been waived for failure to object below (People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1320), nothing in the record suggests that the juvenile court judge conducted a new investigation of evidence that went beyond the scope of evidence admitted at trial. Rather, the judge did exactly what the minor's counsel asked the judge to do in closing argument. The judge examined the gun in her chambers and compared what she saw to the victim's description of the gun outside, on a cloudy day. Like a jury, the judge was entitled to scrutinize the evidence and even "reexamine th[at] evidence in a slightly different context as long as that evaluation [wa]s within the ' " 'scope and purview of the evidence.' " ' " (People v. Collins (2010) 49 Cal.4th 175, 249 [jury may not conduct a new investigation going beyond evidence, but may scrutinize evidence and test reasonable inferences within scope of evidence received].)

Here, the judge considered the appearance of the gun in natural light and determined that the gun looked different in different lighting conditions, and thus, found the victim's description of the gun was reasonable. This was permissible factfinding, not misconduct. The minor's remaining authorities on this issue are inapposite. (See, e.g., People v. Handcock (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d Supp. 25 [judge abused discretion by taking pieces of a tail light to an auto dealer, obtaining a replacement lens, and then bringing the

Page 7

parts-employee to court to testify]; People v. Ramirez (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 842 [judge secretly conducted an experiment designed to test defendant's testimony and then ordered testing to follow up on that experiment].)