Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that the general division of a common pleas court does not have jurisdiction over an offender who was arrested at the age of twenty for felonious acts he allegedly committed as a juvenile.Appellant was arrested at the age of twenty for acts he allegedly committed when he was seventeen years old, acts that would have been felonious had they been committed by an adult. Appellant was first indicted in the general division of the court of common pleas. The State recognized that the general division did not have jurisdiction over Appellant under Ohio Rev. Code 2152.02(C)(3) and 2151.23(I) and moved to dismiss the indictment. The indictment was dismissed, but because Appellant was twenty-two years old at that point, the State reindicted him in the general division the next day. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the jurisdiction of the general division of the court of common pleas is not invoked when a person is arrested at the age of twenty for felonious acts that he allegedly committed as a juvenile. View "State v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The issue presented by this appeal was whether youthful offenders who are statutorily ineligible for early parole consideration were nevertheless entitled to a "Franklin" proceeding to preserve evidence for their eventual parole hearing. During his early 20’s, appellant was involved in three separate criminal incidents. s a result of those incidents, appellant was convicted of kidnapping for robbery and multiple counts of robbery, burglary, false imprisonment and illegal gun possession. He was also found to have personally used a firearm during the offenses and suffered a prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced him to 59 years to life in prison under the “Three Strikes” law. In 2020, appellant requested a Franklin proceeding to present mitigation evidence in anticipation of his youth offender parole hearing (YOPH). However, the trial court correctly determined appellant was not eligible for a YOPH because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. Therefore, it denied his request for a Franklin proceeding. Appellant admitted he was statutorily ineligible for a YOPH because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. However, he contended he is entitled to a YOPH – and a concomitant Franklin proceeding – as a matter of equal protection. Although the Court of Appeal rejected appellant’s equal protection argument, both parties concluded he was entitled to a Franklin proceeding under the standard rules applicable to all parole hearings. The trial court's judgment was reversed and the case remanded for such a proceeding. View "California v. Delgado" on Justia Law

In 2012, Birdsall (age 16) and Nicosia murdered Latiolais in her home and stole a car, guns, jewelry, and marijuana. Birdsall had a distant family relationship with the victim and had done work at her home. Birdsall and Nicosia hid outside the house for several hours; when Latiolais did not leave, they decided to kill her and proceed with the burglary. They later returned and set the house on fire. Police arrested and interrogated Birdsall, who made inculpatory statements. Video recordings of the interrogation were played for the jury at Birdsall’s trial. Birdsall presented a mental state defense but was convicted of first-degree murder and arson. The jury found true the alleged special circumstances. The court sentenced Birdsall to life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction, plus a consecutive five-year term for arson.After the retroactive application of Proposition 57, which requires that a transfer hearing be held in juvenile court before the initiation of adult criminal court proceedings against a minor, the case was remanded to juvenile court, which conducted a transfer hearing and found Birdsall not suitable for juvenile court adjudication and reinstated the original judgment. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Birdsall’s argument that the court erred by failing to suppress his inculpatory statements, which he claims were obtained in violation of Miranda and were involuntary, and challenges to his sentence and to one of the jury instructions. View "Peope v. Birdsall" on Justia Law

Mother appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders pertaining to her children, citing the court’s findings that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 1901) did not apply to the dependency proceedings. She argued that evidence of her children’s Native American ancestry triggered the duty under state law (Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2(e)) to further investigate whether her children come within the federal Act.The court of appeal vacated and remanded. The Department of Family and Children’s Services failed to comply with the statutory duty to further investigate whether the children are Indian children; the juvenile court’s negative ICWA findings were based on insufficient evidence. The social worker’s initial inquiry established a reason to believe the children are Indian children; both the mother and the maternal grandfather stated that “a maternal great grandfather may have Native American ancestry in Minnesota.” The court rejected an argument that further inquiry would be futile, and specifically that contacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the State Department of Social Services would be an idle act. View "In re I.F." on Justia Law

By passing Proposition 83 (Jessica's Law), voters intended to continue to classify the crime of possession of child pornography as a "wobbler" so that juvenile courts could continue to declare it as either a felony or a misdemeanor.In this case, H.N., a minor, appeals an order of the juvenile court sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition with a finding that he possessed child pornography. The Court of Appeal concluded that the juvenile court erred by not making an express finding per Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 whether the Penal Code section 311.11, subdivision (a) offense was a felony or a misdemeanor. The court struck the maximum turn of confinement finding H.N. was placed on home probation and remanded to the juvenile court to make a finding whether the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. The court otherwise affirmed. View "In re H.N." on Justia Law

K.F.C., age 11, signed up for a Snapchat account. Snapchat's terms specify that a person must be at least 13 to have an account. K.F.C. lied about her age. Before she turned 18, K.F.C. sued, alleging that Snapchat’s features amount to facial recognition, which violates the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, K.F.C. acknowledges that she accepted Snapchat’s terms but denies that its arbitration clause binds her although she continued using Snapchat after turning 13.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case. An arbitrator, not a court, must decide whether K.F.C.’s youth is a defense to the contract’s enforcement. While even the most sweeping delegation cannot send the contract-formation issue to the arbitrator, state law does not provide that agreements between adults and children are void but treats such agreements as voidable (capable of ratification), so the age of the contracting parties is a potential defense to enforcement. The Federal Arbitration Act provides that arbitration is enforceable to the extent any promise is enforceable as a matter of state law, 9 U.S.C. 2. A challenge to the validity (as opposed to the existence) of a contract goes to the arbitrator; K.F.C.’s arguments about her youth and public policy concern the contract’s validity, not its existence. View "K.F.C. v. Snap Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a Second Superseding Indictment (SSI) charging defendant with racketeering conspiracy. After determining that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to hear this interlocutory appeal, the panel held that the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA) does not preclude the government from prosecuting a person as an adult for a continuing conspiracy that includes both pre- and post-majority conduct after the court dismisses a JDA information charging that person with conspiracy based solely on pre-majority conduct.In this case, because defendant's participation in the conspiracy allegedly continued beyond his eighteenth birthday, it was no longer an act of juvenile delinquency under the JDA. Rather, the panel concluded that the conduct became a continuing adult RICO conspiracy offense which began when he was a juvenile but continued when he allegedly engaged in additional acts in furtherance of the ongoing conspiracy after reaching the age of majority. View "United States v. Mendez" on Justia Law

In these three consolidated appeals the Supreme Court held that the State has discretion to charge juveniles under the provisions of either S.D. Codified laws 32-23-1 or S.D. Codified Laws 32.23-21.Defendants, all minors under the age of eighteen, were charged as adults in separate cases for driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of more than .08, in violation of section 32-23-1(1). Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that their status as juveniles stripped the magistrate courts presiding over their cases of jurisdiction. The magistrate courts dismissed the motions, and the circuit courts affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendants failed to support their argument that the language of the relevant statutes prevents the State from charging them in magistrate court with violations of section 32-23-1. View "State v. Bettelyoun" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of special-circumstance murder and sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed when she was 16 years old. The Court of Appeal affirmed defendant's conviction and remanded for resentencing in light of Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b). On remand, the trial court mischaracterized the court's mandate as simply directing a clarification of its prior sentencing decision.The Court of Appeal concluded that defendant is entitled to a sentencing decision made in the exercise of informed discretion by the sentencing court, and the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the outcome would not be different if she were present at the hearing and she and her counsel had a fair opportunity to provide information concerning the youth-related mitigating factors identified in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, and People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1388-1389. However, the court concluded that a different result is not possible before the judge who has previously heard the matter. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and again remanded for resentencing with all further proceedings to be heard before a different trial judge. View "People v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court denying RH's petition for expungement of his record pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-6-241, holding that the district court erred in interpreting sections 14-6-241(d) and (e).When RH was sixteen years old the State filed a delinquency petition against him. RH agreed to a deferred prosecution and successfully completed the terms of his deferral. Thereafter, the juvenile court dismissed the delinquency petition. RH later petitioned for expungement of his record. The juvenile court denied the petition, concluding that RH was statutorily ineligible to have the record expunged because the petition charged him with a violent felony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 14-6-241 allows expungement of a juvenile record where a delinquency petition was dismissed but the delinquent act charged was a violent felony. View "RH v. State" on Justia Law