Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

Respondent was adjudicated delinquent of felony burglary and misdemeanor theft. Thereafter, Respondent obtained a district court order expunging his juvenile delinquency records held by the judicial branch and sought to expunge his juvenile delinquency records held by the executive branch. The district court denied the request, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) under Minn. Stat. 260B.198(6), the authority of the district court to expunge juvenile delinquency records in executive branch files is limited to the order adjudicating the juvenile delinquent; (2) to determine whether expungement is advisable within the meaning of section 260B.198(6), the district court must weight the benefit to the petitioner against the detriment to the public and the burden on the court; and (3) the district court should decide if Respondent's petition merits expungement by applying the balancing test the Court articulated here to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. View "In re J.J.P." on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to entering without breaking. The circuit court ordered Petitioner to be placed at the Anthony Center for Youthful Offenders. The warden later determined Petitioner was unfit to continue his placement at that facility, and Petitioner was transferred to jail. After a hearing to determine if the warden abused his discretion in removing Petitioner from the Anthony Center, the circuit court reinstated Petitioner's original one to ten year prison sentence and ordered that Petitioner not be given any credit towards the sentence for the time served at the Anthony Center. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in upholding the warden's decision to expel Petitioner from the Anthony Center; but (2) erroneously denied Petitioner's request for credit for time served. Remanded. View "State v. Fitzsimmons" on Justia Law

Petitioner, who was fourteen years old at the time, stipulated that she was absent from school on nine days within a five-week period. Petitioner denied she was an habitual truant because six of the nine days were due to an out-of-school suspension. The circuit court concluded that the total nine absences constituted habitual truancy, adjudicated Petitioner to be a status offender, placed her on probation, and ordered Petitioner be placed in the legal custody of the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR). The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in adjudicating Petitioner a status offender and in placing her on supervised probation; but (2) erred in failing to make adequate findings regarding transfer of legal custody to the DHHR and in exceeding its jurisdiction by attempting to impose probation beyond the age of eighteen. View "In re Brandi B." on Justia Law

Pursuant to plea agreements in five different cases, the trial court rendered judgments adjudicating five juveniles (Respondents) delinquent for various offenses and ordered that they be committed to the department of children and families (department) for periods of less than eighteen months. At issue in this consolidated appeal was whether Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-141(a)(1)(A) permitted the superior court judge to order the commitment of Respondents to the custody of the department for a period of time less than eighteen months. The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the trial court in all five cases, holding (1) section 46b-141(a)(1)(A) requires a judge to commit the delinquent child to an indeterminate commitment of eighteen months subject to any subsequent modification as provided by statute; and (2) the trial court in these cases improperly sentenced Respondents to commitment for an indeterminate time up to a maximum period of less than eighteen months. Remanded. View "In re Jusstice W." on Justia Law

"J.H." appealed an adjudication that she was a child in need of care and supervision (CHINS) for being "habitually and without justification truant from compulsory school attendance." J.H. contended: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the findings; and (2) the court improperly shifted the burden of proof on the question of whether she was habitually truant "without justification." The only witness was a Bennington County deputy sheriff who testified that he served as the County's truancy officer. The officer testified that he ended up transporting J.H. to school on two subsequent days in January. On the third occasion, the officer served a "truancy notice," the purpose of which was to warn a parent or guardian that a truancy case could be brought if their child is continually absent. The officer went to the home twice more in January (the fourth and fifth visits that month) but there was no response from anyone at the residence. At the conclusion of the officer's testimony, J.H.'s counsel moved to dismiss the petition, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to establish that J.H. was habitually truant. The trial court denied the motion, finding that five truancy reports within "a matter of weeks . . . meet[s] the definition of being habitually not at school."  The court also observed it had "no evidence . . . of justification for [J.H.] not being in school." Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the record evidence was fundamentally insufficient to establish that J.H. was truant on the days alleged. "Inasmuch as the evidence here was plainly insufficient under [33 V.S.A. 5102(3)(D)], we are compelled to conclude that the adjudication of CHINS based on truancy must be reversed." View "In re J. H." on Justia Law

The State filed a petition in juvenile court alleging that SWM, a minor, had committed two delinquent acts. SWM's counsel filed a motion to suspend proceedings for evaluation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-11-303 and Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-6-219. The juvenile court granted the motion, determining that sections 7-11-303 and 14-6-219 required an examination of SWM for competency to proceed. After the report under section 7-11-303 was filed, the State filed a motion asking the court to strike the portions of SWM's forensic evaluation that were conducted pursuant to section 7-11-303 as irrelevant to the proceedings. The juvenile court granted the motion and subsequently found SWM was competent to proceed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the due process considerations that underlie section 7-11-303 also apply in determining the competency of a minor under section 14-6-219; and (2) although the juvenile court ordered a competency evaluation and ruled that SWM was competent to proceed, it did not evaluate SWM under the correct standards, and therefore, SWM's due process right not to proceed unless competent was not property protected. Remanded. View "In re Interest of SWM" on Justia Law

Rylee, age sixteen, was nonverbal and autistic. A juvenile petition was filed because Rylee was excessively absent from school. The State placed no fault on Lisa, Rylee's mother. The juvenile court entered an order adjudicating Rylee as a child defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a). As part of the adjudication, Lisa was ordered to complete a pretreatment assessment and to sign releases of information to allow the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) an opportunity to access information from her therapist and treatment providers. Lisa appealed, challenging the reasonableness of the juvenile court's order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the decision of the juvenile court ordering Lisa to submit to a pretreatment assessment and to sign releases of information to allow the DHHS to access her mental health information was unreasonable. Remanded. View "In re Interest of Rylee S." on Justia Law

Defendant was a juvenile who admitted giving hydrocodone to another student. Defendant's confession was made directly in answer to questions from the school assistant principal, who was working with a deputy sheriff (School Resource Officer or SRO), also present. The SRO did not read Defendant his Miranda rights before the questioning. Defendant was subsequently charged with possessing and dispensing a controlled substance, a felony, in a juvenile petition. After unsuccessfully filing a motion to suppress, Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge. Defendant subsequently appealed the denial of his motion. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a student is entitled to the benefit of the Miranda warnings before being questioned by a school official in conjunction with a law enforcement officer, the SRO, when he is subject to criminal charges. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statements Defendant made before law enforcement when he was questioned by the assistant principal must be suppressed because he was in custody and was not given the Miranda warnings. View "N.C. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The State filed seven complaints against Appellee, a juvenile, alleging that he was delinquent for engaging in conduct that, if he had been an adult, would have constituted rape and gross sexual imposition. During pretrial proceedings, the State sought to introduce statements that two of the alleged victims made to a social worker with the police department. A magistrate concluded that the State was precluded from introducing at trial the out-of-court statements. The State did not move to set aside the magistrate's decision as was its right under the juvenile rules of procedure and failed to perfect an interlocutory appeal pursuant to the juvenile rules of procedure. The case proceeded to trial, where the court dismissed all counts after declining to allow out-of-court statements into evidence. The State appealed. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State is not authorized to pursue a discretionary appeal when it fails to take an appeal as of right in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure. View "In re M.M." on Justia Law

Juvenile was arraigned in the juvenile court on a complaint alleging indecent assault and battery on a person under the age of fourteen. Juvenile pleaded delinquent and was placed on supervised probation for a period of six months. Although Juvenile was not advised during the plea colloquy that GPS monitoring would be required as a condition of probation, the judge entered an order requiring Juvenile to wear a GPS monitoring device during the term of his probation. The judge denied Juvenile's motion for relief from GPS monitoring. The Supreme Court dismissed Juvenile's appeal, holding that a juvenile court retains the discretion, based on the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether GPS monitoring should be imposed as a condition of probation for a juvenile who is adjudicated delinquent after committing a sex offense. View "Commonwealth v. Hanson H." on Justia Law