U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

DEPARTMEN

T

OF

JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF

JUS

T

I

CE

PROGRAMS

BJA NI J

OJJ

DP

BJS OVC
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile

delinquency; supports a program for data collection

and information sharing that incorporates elements

of statistical and systems development; identifies

how delinquency develops and the best methods

for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and

analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice

system.

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides juvenile justice training and technical assistance to Federal, State, and local governments; law

enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel;

and private agencies, educational institutions, and

community organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to replicate tested approaches to

delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in

such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders,

community-based sanctions, and the disproportionate

representation of minorities in the juvenile justice

system.

State Relations and Assistance Division supports

collaborative efforts by States to carry out the mandates of the JJDP Act by providing formula grant

funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to

States, local governments, and private agencies;

and monitoring State compliance with the JJDP Act.

Information Dissemination Unit informs individuals

and organizations of OJJDP initiatives; disseminates

information on juvenile justice, delinquency prevention, and missing children; and coordinates program

planning efforts within OJJDP. The unit’s activities

include publishing research and statistical reports,

bulletins, and other documents, as well as overseeing

the operations of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes interagency cooperation and coordination

among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the

area of juvenile justice. The program primarily carries

out this responsibility through the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an

independent body within the executive branch that

was established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program seeks to

promote effective policies and procedures for addressing the problem of missing and exploited children.

Established by the Missing Children’s Assistance Act

of 1984, the program provides funds for a variety of

activities to support and coordinate a network of resources such as the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children; training and technical assistance

to a network of 47 State clearinghouses, nonprofit

organizations, law enforcement personnel, and attorneys; and research and demonstration programs.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Congress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415, as

amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is to

provide national leadership in addressing the issues of juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice

system as a whole, as well as to benefit individual youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by

seven components within OJJDP, described below.

The mission of OJJDP is to provide national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent juvenile victimization

and respond appropriately to juvenile delinquency. This is accomplished through developing and implementing prevention programs and a juvenile justice system that protects the public safety, holds juvenile offenders accountable,

and provides treatment and rehabilitative services based on the needs of each individual juvenile.
i

Trying Juveniles as Adults

in Criminal Court:

An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions

Report

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

December 1998

Patrick Griffin

Patricia Torbet

Linda Szymanski

National Center for Juvenile Justice
ii

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher

Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and was supported by cooperative agreement number

95–JN–FX–K003 with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent

the official positions or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright 1998, National Center for Juvenile Justice, 710 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219–3000,

412–227–6950.

Suggested citation: Griffin, P., Torbet, P., and Szymanski, L. 1998. Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal

Court: An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
iii

Foreword

In recent years, the number of juvenile offenders transferred into the adult criminal justice system has increased. From 1992 through 1995, 40 States and the District of Columbia passed laws making it easier for

juveniles to be tried as adults. To better understand this growing trend and its potential impact on youth crime,

we need to take into account the nature of the offenses triggering such transfers and the various mechanisms

used to effect them.

Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions delineates the distinctions

among discretionary, mandatory, and presumptive waivers. Direct file provisions, which typically authorize

the prosecutor to determine the jurisdiction based on age/offense categories, are described, as are statutory

exclusions, which remove certain offenses or age/offense categories from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Other topics covered include “once an adult/always an adult” provisions, transfer for nonviolent offenses, requirements for additional pretransfer findings, evidentiary standards for waivers and transfers, transfer treatment based on prior record, devices to limit prosecutorial discretion, and minimum age provisions.

As we work to strengthen our response to challenges posed by youth crime, the information provided by this

Bulletin should prove helpful in assessing the role that should be played by the transfer of juvenile offenders to

adult criminal courts.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
v

Acknowledgments

This Report is the result of months of effort on the part of several individuals whose contributions are gratefully acknowledged. Melissa Sickmund, Senior Research Associate, had the initial vision for summarizing

the findings of this research, and Terry Finnegan, Senior Computer Programmer, created the data base in

which information on State transfer laws was collected, organized, and displayed for the appendix. Melanie

Bozynski, Research Assistant, generated tables, Heather Zink, student intern, assisted with the work of

analyzing and categorizing transfer provisions, and Diane Malloy, Administrative Assistant, made last minute

changes. Heather Frey, editor at JJC, oversaw production of this Report. Michael Goodnow was the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Project Manager for this work. This Report was produced

under the auspices of the Technical Assistance to the Juvenile Court Project at the National Center for

Juvenile Justice.
vii

Table of Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................ v

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................... viii

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Transfer Provisions ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Waiver .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Direct File ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

Statutory Exclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Reverse Waiver ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Once an Adult/Always an Adult ................................................................................................................. 10

Additional Analyses ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Transfer for Nonviolent Offenses ............................................................................................................... 13

Additional Pretransfer Findings Required ................................................................................................ 13

Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard ................................................................................................. 13

Special Transfer Treatment Based on Prior Record ................................................................................. 14

Devices To Limit Prosecutorial Discretion ............................................................................................... 14

Minimum Age Provisions ............................................................................................................................ 15

Appendix .......................................................................................................................................................... A-1
viii

List of Tables

Most States Have a Combination of Transfer Provisions ......................................................................... 1

Summary of Transfer Provisions, 1997 ........................................................................................................ 2

Discretionary Waiver: Minimum Age and Offense Criteria, 1997 .......................................................... 5

Mandatory Waiver: Minimum Age and Offense Criteria, 1997 ............................................................... 6

Presumptive Waiver: Minimum Age and Offense Criteria, 1997 ............................................................. 7

Direct File: Minimum Age and Offense Criteria, 1997 ............................................................................. 8

Statutory Exclusion: Minimum Age and Offense Criteria, 1997 ............................................................. 9

Minimum Age and Offenses for Which a Juvenile Can Be Transferred to Criminal

Court in Every State, 1997 ...................................................................................................................... 14

Lowest Age of Criminal Responsibility/Criminal Court Jurisdiction, 1997 ......................................... 16

Lowest Age for Original Juvenile Court Jurisdiction in Delinquency Matters, 1997 ........................ 17
1

Introduction

All States and the District of Columbia (hereafter included with States in this Report) allow adult criminal

prosecution of juveniles under some circumstances. The

following discussion of State law in this area—which is

based on State statutes as amended through the 1997

legislative sessions—gives an account of the principal

transfer mechanisms by which juveniles are placed in the

criminal justice system at the State level for serious and

violent crimes.

State transfer mechanisms differ from one another primarily in where they locate the responsibility for deciding

whether or not a given juvenile should be prosecuted in a

court exercising civil (delinquency) or criminal jurisdiction.

◆ Waiver provisions leave transfer decisionmaking to the

State’s juvenile courts: juveniles may not be prosecuted

as if they were adult criminals pursuant to a waiver

provision until a juvenile court judge has ordered it.1

Waiver provisions differ from one another in the degree of decisionmaking flexibility they allow the courts.

Some make the waiver decision entirely discretionary.

Others set up a presumption in favor of waiver. And still

others specify circumstances under which waiver is

mandatory. But under all waiver provisions, a case

against a juvenile must at least originate in juvenile

court and cannot be channeled elsewhere without a

juvenile court judge’s formal approval.

◆ Direct File provisions leave it up to the prosecutor to

determine whether to initiate a case against a minor in

juvenile court or in criminal (adult) court.

◆ Statutory Exclusion provisions grant criminal courts

original jurisdiction over a whole class of cases involving juveniles. Under statutory exclusion, a State legislature is essentially predetermining the question of

criminal prosecution for itself and taking the decision

out of both the prosecutor’s and the court’s hands.

This Report also describes statutory mechanisms by

which individual cases may be moved from criminal to

juvenile court (see Reverse Waiver); provisions that

permanently terminate juvenile court jurisdiction over

individual juveniles who have been tried or convicted as

adults (see Once an Adult/Always an Adult); standards

applied to waiver decisions (see Transfer Criteria); and a

number of related subsidiary issues, including the extent

to which transfers are allowed or required for offenses

that are not violent, probable cause requirements, extraordinary evidentiary burdens, the effect of prior

delinquency records in transfer proceedings, limits on

prosecutorial discretion, and minimum age provisions.

Direct file only: Nebraska.

Exclusion only: New Mexico and New York.

Waiver2

 only: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas,

Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island,

Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

Direct file and exclusion: Massachusetts.

Waiver2

 and direct file: Arkansas, Colorado, District of

Columbia, Michigan, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Waiver2

 and exclusion: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Idaho,

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,

South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

All three mechanisms: Arizona, Florida, Georgia,

Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, and Vermont.

2

 Waiver refers to discretionary, mandatory, and/or presumptive judicial

waivers. See appendix for more detail.

Most States Have a Combination

of Transfer Provisions

1 State laws do not change the legal status of a juvenile, who is criminally

prosecuted, to an adult. Rather, the transfer mechanisms provide for the

prosecution of juveniles as if they were adults, subjecting them to a possible

criminal conviction and sentence in a court exercising criminal jurisdiction, in

the same manner as an adult offender. However, it is common parlance to

refer to a juvenile who is criminally prosecuted as one who is being prosecuted “as an adult” or in “adult court.”
2

Summary of Transfer Provisions, 1997

Judicial Waiver Direct Statutory Reverse Once an Adult/

State Discretionary Mandatory Presumptive File Exclusion Waiver Always an Adult

Total States: 46 14 15 15 28 23 31

Alabama ■ ■■

Alaska ■ ■■

Arizona ■ ■* ■■ ■ ■

Arkansas ■ ■■

California ■■ ■

Colorado ■ ■■ ■

Connecticut ■ ■

Delaware ■ ■ ■■ ■

Dist. of Columbia ■ ■■ ■

Florida ■ ■■ ■

Georgia ■ ■ ■■ ■

Hawaii ■ (r–97) ■

Idaho ■ ■■

Illinois ■ ■■ ■

Indiana ■■ ■ ■

Iowa ■ ■■ ■

Kansas ■ ■ (r–96) ■

Kentucky ■■ ■

Louisiana ■ ■ ■■

Maine ■ ■

Maryland ■ ■■

Massachusetts (r–96) ■ ■

Michigan ■ ■■

Minnesota ■ ■■ ■

Mississippi ■ ■■ ■

Missouri ■ ■

Montana ■ ■■

Nebraska ■ ■

Nevada ■ ■ ■■ ■

New Hampshire ■■ ■

New Jersey ■ ■

New Mexico ■

New York ■ ■

North Carolina ■ ■

North Dakota ■ ■■ ■

Ohio ■■ ■

Oklahoma ■ ■■ ■ ■

Oregon ■ ■■ ■

Pennsylvania ■ ■ ■■ ■

Rhode Island ■ ■■ ■

South Carolina ■ ■ ■■

South Dakota ■ ■■ ■

Tennessee ■ ■■

Texas ■ ■

Utah ■ ■■ ■

Vermont ■ ■■ ■

Virginia ■ ■ ■ ■■

Washington ■ ■■

West Virginia ■ ■

Wisconsin ■ ■■ ■

Wyoming ■ ■■

Legend: ■ indicates the provision(s) allowed by each State as of the end of the 1997 legislative session; “r” indicates repealed; * indicates by court rule.
3

Transfer Provisions

bearing on the waiver issue. In addition, laws in

seven States require a prehearing investigative report on the accused juvenile’s past record and current circumstances, prepared by a juvenile probation

office or some other local agency, to be submitted to

the juvenile court for its consideration.

The prosecution bears the burden of proof in a discretionary waiver hearing; however, some States

designate special circumstances under which this

burden may be shifted to the child (see Presumptive

Waiver). Generally, the case for a waiver must be

made by “a preponderance of the evidence,” although a few States require a higher showing (see

Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard in next

chapter). In most discretionary waiver jurisdictions,

the law specifies factors a court must weigh, findings

it must make, and an overall standard it must apply

in making its waiver decision (see Transfer Criteria

below).

Once a case has been waived to criminal court, statutes in seven States expressly provide that the criminal court may exercise jurisdiction not only over the

offense that triggered the waiver, but also over any

lesser included offenses.

Transfer Criteria

Nearly all of the States that authorize juvenile courts

to make discretionary waivers (44 out of 46) specify

broad standards to be applied and/or factors to be

considered in deciding whether to waive jurisdiction.

Overall, standards tend to be in the form of extremely

general formulas—“the best interests of the child and

the public,” for instance. Lists of factors to be

weighed by the courts are always considerably more

specific and are usually at least loosely based on the

eight factors enumerated in Kent.

Waiver

Discretionary Waiver

A total of 46 States give juvenile court judges discretion to waive jurisdiction in individual cases involving minors, so as to allow prosecution in adult

criminal courts. Terminology varies from State to

State—some call the process a “certification,” “bindover,” or “remand” for criminal prosecution, for example, or a “transfer” or “decline” rather than a

waiver proceeding—but all transfer mechanisms in

this category have the effect of authorizing but not

requiring juvenile courts to designate appropriate

cases for adult prosecution.

Most discretionary waiver statutes specify threshold

criteria similar to those outlined in Kent v. United

States (383 U.S. 541, 566–67 (1966)) that must

be met before the court may consider waiver in a

given case: generally a minimum age, a specified

type or level of offense, a sufficiently serious record

of previous delinquency, or some combination of the

three. However, 17 States authorize discretionary

waiver, at least for certain age groups, for any offense. (This is not to say that offense seriousness is

not taken into account in waiver determinations in

those States, only that their statutes specify no particular kind or quality of offense as a threshold for

waiver consideration.)

Some States specify that the prosecutor must initiate

the discretionary waiver process by filing a motion;

others allow any party or the court to initiate the

process.

In all States where discretionary waiver is authorized, the juvenile court must conduct a hearing at

which the parties are entitled to present evidence
4

The most common waiver standards call for courts

to exercise their discretion to waive jurisdiction

when the interests of the juvenile or the public (six

States) or the interests of both (four States) would

be served thereby; when the public safety (six

States) or the public interest (four States) requires

it; or when the juvenile does not appear to be amenable to treatment or rehabilitation within the juvenile system (four States). Most of the remaining

standards combine these concepts in some way

(the District of Columbia, for example, authorizes

waiver if it is “in the interest of the public welfare

and protection of the public security and there are

no reasonable prospects for rehabilitation”) or simply allow waiver whenever the court finds “good

cause” (Kansas) or whenever the accused is not a

“proper subject” for juvenile treatment (Missouri

and Virginia). Besides requiring the court to consider “the best interests of the youth and of society”

as a number of other States do, Oregon departs

from the usual practice by focusing on whether the

juvenile has the capacity “to appreciate the nature

and quality of [his or her] conduct.”

Most States that specify particular factors to be considered in waiver hearings either simply paraphrase

the list from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kent opinion

or list some of the Kent factors that are considered

more important while omitting others. But a few

States add factors of their own to the Kent list. In

the District of Columbia, for example, judges considering waiver are called upon to bear in mind,

besides the Kent factors, the “potential rehabilitative

effect . . . of parenting classes or family counseling”

on the juvenile. Arizona adds consideration of the

views of the victim and any gang involvement on the

juvenile’s part to the usual list of factors. Maine requires the court to ask whether retaining jurisdiction

would “diminish the gravity of the offense” in public

opinion. In Missouri, courts must take into account

any “racial disparity in certification” of juveniles for

adult prosecution.

Most State statutes simply recite the factors and

leave them to the consideration of juvenile court

judges, without attempting to dictate precisely how

they should fit into the waiver decision. In Michigan

and Minnesota, however, courts are required to give

the most weight to two specified factors (offense

seriousness and prior record), whereas in Kentucky

the law specifies that, of the seven factors the court

must consider, at least two must support any decision in favor of waiver.

Mandatory Waiver

The statutes of 14 States provide for mandatory

waiver in cases that meet certain age, offense, or other

criteria. In these States, proceedings against the juvenile are initiated in juvenile court. However, the juvenile court has no role other than to confirm that the

statutory requirements for mandatory waiver are met.

Once it has done so, the juvenile court must send

the case to a court of criminal jurisdiction.

Mandatory waiver must be distinguished from statutory exclusion. When an offense has been excluded

by law from juvenile court jurisdiction, the case

against a minor accused of that offense originates

in criminal court. Under ordinary circumstances,

the juvenile court has no involvement and is entirely

bypassed. By contrast, although the juvenile court’s

involvement in a mandatory waiver case may be

minimal, it receives the case initially, conducts some

sort of preliminary hearing to ensure that the case

is one to which the mandatory waiver statute applies, and issues a transfer order and any other necessary orders, relating to appointment of counsel,

interim detention, and so on.

The mandatory waiver classification applies to

statutory mechanisms that actually tie the juvenile

court’s hands—not those that merely seem to. So,

for example, the many State laws that recite that

the juvenile court “shall” or “must” transfer certain

juveniles—if the public interest requires it or unless there are good reasons not to—are classified as

discretionary waiver provisions. Generally, in a

true mandatory waiver jurisdiction, the juvenile

court is called upon only to determine that there is

probable cause to believe a juvenile of the requisite

age committed an offense falling within the mandatory waiver law. However, even this is not always

necessary: in Indiana and South Carolina, which

require mandatory waiver in cases involving juveniles with certain prior records, the juvenile court,

once it has confirmed the juvenile’s record, may

leave the probable cause determination to the
5

Discretionary Waiver: Minimum Age and Offense Criteria, 1997

Any Certain Offenses

Lower Criminal Certain Capital Person Property Drug Weapon

State Age† Offense Felonies Crimes Murder Offenses Offenses Offenses Offenses

Alabama 14

Alaska NS

Arizona 8 NS

Arkansas 10 14/16* 14 14 14 14

California 16 14 14 14 14

Colorado 10 12/14* 12 12

Delaware NS/14*

District of Columbia 16/18* 15 NS

Florida 14

Georgia 15 13

Hawaii 14/16* NS

Idaho 14 NS NS NS NS NS

Illinois 13

Indiana 14 16 10/16* 16

Iowa 14/15*

Kansas 10 10

Kentucky 14/16* 14

Louisiana 10 14 14

Maine NS NS

Maryland 7 15 NS

Michigan 14

Minnesota 10 14

Mississippi 10 13

Missouri 12

Montana*

Nevada 14

New Hampshire 15 13 13

New Jersey 14 14 14 14 14

North Carolina 6 13

North Dakota 16 14

Ohio 14

Oklahoma NS

Oregon 15 NS NS/15* 15

Pennsylvania 10 14

Rhode Island 16 NS

South Carolina 16 14 NS NS/14* 14 14

South Dakota 10 NS

Tennessee 16 NS NS

Texas 10 14/15* 14 14

Utah 14

Vermont 10 10 10 10

Virginia 14

Washington NS

West Virginia NS/14* NS NS NS NS

Wisconsin 10 15 14 14 14 14 14

Wyoming 13

Note: “NS” indicates “none specified.”

†“Lower age” refers to the minimum age below which the juvenile court has no jurisdiction for delinquency matters.

*See appendix for more detail on State provisions.
6

criminal court. In Connecticut, the law stipulates

that, where the mandatory waiver provision

applies, the juvenile’s counsel is not permitted to

make any argument or file any motion to oppose

transfer; in fact, in those mandatory waiver situations in which a probable cause finding is necessary, the court makes it without notice, a hearing,

or any participation on the part of the juvenile or

his or her attorney.

Laws in a few States specify types of cases in

which courts must at least consider waiver. For

instance, Delaware, besides requiring waiver in

certain cases, also requires that the courts give

consideration to waiver in some others—as when

a juvenile of at least 14 is charged with violating a

restitution order or when one who is at least 16 is

charged with having committed any of various

listed crimes. Likewise, a Missouri law mandates

that the court at least hold a waiver hearing when

a juvenile is charged with any of a number of serious crimes or has already committed two or more

previous felonies. However, since these laws do

not affirmatively mandate waiver—only that the

courts consider waiver—they have been classified

as discretionary waiver provisions.

Presumptive Waiver

In 15 States, statutes (court rule in Arizona) designate a category of cases in which waiver to criminal

court is rebuttably presumed to be appropriate. In

such cases, the juvenile rather than the State bears

the burden of proof in the waiver hearing; if a juvenile meeting age, offense, or other statutory criteria

triggering the presumption fails to make an adequate

argument against transfer, the juvenile court must

send the case to criminal court.

It should be noted that the rebuttable presumption

in these cases applies if the juvenile meets statutory

criteria qualifying the case for presumptive waiver

treatment. It would not ordinarily apply to the question of whether the juvenile meets these criteria.

For instance, in Alaska—which like many States

generally requires that the prosecutor in a waiver

hearing demonstrate probable cause to believe that

the juvenile actually committed the crime alleged

(see Additional Pretransfer Findings Required)—

the prosecutor must show probable cause even when

the alleged crime is one that triggers a presumptive

waiver. Only when the prosecutor has met this

initial burden must the juvenile come forward with

evidence of “amenability to treatment” as a juvenile.

Mandatory Waiver: Minimum Age and Offense Criteria, 1997

Any Certain Offenses

Lower Criminal Certain Capital Person Property Drug Weapon

State Age† Offense Felonies Crimes Murder Offenses Offenses Offenses Offenses

Connecticut 14 14 14

Delaware 15 NS NS/16* 16 16

Georgia 14 14 15

Illinois 15

Indiana NS

Kentucky 14

Louisiana 15 15

North Carolina 6 13

North Dakota 14 14 14

Ohio 14 14/16* 16 16

Rhode Island 17 17

South Carolina 14

Virginia 14 14

West Virginia 14 14 14 14

Note: “NS” indicates “none specified.”

†“Lower age” refers to the minimum age below which the juvenile court has no jurisdiction for delinquency matters.

*See appendix for more detail on State provisions.
7

In four States, a child subject to a presumption in

favor of waiver not only has the burden of proof at

the waiver hearing, but must present “clear and

convincing evidence” that a waiver is not justified

(see Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard).

Statutory criteria triggering presumptive waiver

fall into three broad categories. In some States, it is

primarily the current offense that matters; in

Alaska, for example, children of any age charged

with certain violent felonies are rebuttably presumed to be “unamenable to treatment.” (Alaska,

however, is the only State that has set up a presumption against children younger than 14.) In

others, older juveniles are singled out, even if the

offenses of which they are accused would not otherwise trigger a presumption; in New Hampshire,

the same crimes that would merely authorize consideration of a waiver in the case of a 13-year-old

would presumptively require one if the juvenile

involved was 15 at the time of commission. Still

other States emphasize the child’s prior offense

history over other factors; in Colorado, if the juvenile otherwise qualifies for discretionary waiver

treatment, a sufficiently serious prior delinquency

record triggers the presumption all by itself.

Direct File

Statutes in 15 States define a category of cases in

which the prosecutor may determine whether to

proceed initially in juvenile or criminal court. Typically, these direct file provisions give both juvenile

and adult criminal courts the power to hear cases

involving certain offenses or age/offense categories,

leaving it up to the prosecutor to make discretionary

decisions about where to file them.

Of course, prosecutors often have considerable discretionary powers in this area even in the absence

of formal statutory authority. In their charging decisions, for instance, they may sometimes, in effect,

choose the forum in which the case will be heard.

What distinguishes direct file authority is that it

rests on the juvenile and criminal courts’ concurrent

jurisdiction over a given type of case.

Again, as is the case with other transfer mechanisms,

there is wide variation among the States regarding

criteria for direct file treatment, with some emphasizing offense categories, others the age of the juvenile

involved, and still others the extent and seriousness

of the juvenile’s offending history. Generally, the

Presumptive Waiver: Minimum Age and Offense Criteria, 1997

Note: “NS” indicates “none specified.”

†“Lower age” refers to the minimum age below which the juvenile court has no jurisdiction for delinquency matters.

∆By court rule.

*See appendix for more detail on State provisions.

Any Certain Offenses

Lower Criminal Certain Capital Person Property Drug Weapon

State Age† Offense Felonies Crimes Murder Offenses Offenses Offenses Offenses

Alaska NS

Arizona 8 16∆

California 16 14/16* 16 16 16

Colorado*

District of Columbia 15 15 15 15

Illinois 15

Kansas 10 14 14 14 14

Minnesota 10 16

Nevada 14 14

New Hampshire 15 15 15 15

New Jersey 14 14 14 14

North Dakota 14 14 14

Pennsylvania 10 14 15 15

Rhode Island*

Utah 16 16 16 16 16
8

Direct File: Minimum Age and Offense Criteria, 1997

Note: “NS” indicates “none specified.”

†“Lower age” refers to the minimum age below which the juvenile court has no jurisdiction for delinquency matters.

*See appendix for more detail on State provisions.

minimum level of offense seriousness necessary to

trigger direct file appears to be lower than that required for statutory exclusion or mandatory or presumptive waiver. Arkansas authorizes direct file

treatment of a large range of offenses (including soliciting a minor to join a street gang), evidently trusting

its prosecutors to make appropriate filing and resource allocation decisions. Florida allows even misdemeanors to be prosecuted in criminal court if the

child involved is at least 16 and has a sufficiently

serious record.

Statutory Exclusion

Twenty-eight States have statutes that remove certain

offenses or age/offense/prior record categories from

the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Generally, the laws

of such States simply exclude anyone fitting into one

of these categories from being defined as a “child” for

juvenile court jurisdictional purposes. A juvenile accused of an excluded offense is treated as an adult

from the beginning—that is, proceeded against (by

information, indictment, or otherwise) in the criminal

court that would have had jurisdiction over the same

offense if it had been committed by an adult. This

way of proceeding is not merely an option available

to the prosecutor, as in those States that leave the

determination of how to process certain offenses or

age/offense categories to the prosecutor’s discretion

(see Direct File). Once the prosecutor has made the

decision to charge a juvenile with an excluded offense, the case must be filed in criminal court—although many States provide a mechanism under

which criminal courts may order excluded cases

transferred to juvenile courts (see Reverse Waiver).

Some States exclude only the most serious offenses;

in New Mexico, for example, only first-degree murder committed by a child of at least 15 is excluded.

Others single out cases involving older juveniles.

Mississippi excludes all felonies committed by 

17-year-olds. It should be noted that one blanket application of this method—simply lowering the upper

age limit of original juvenile court jurisdiction—excludes the largest number of juveniles for adult prosecution. Finally, as is the case with the presumptive

and mandatory waiver provisions previously discussed, some States focus not so much on offense or

age as on the individual juvenile’s offense history.

Arizona excludes any felony committed by a juvenile

as young as 15, provided the juvenile has two or more

previous delinquency adjudications for offenses that

would have been felonies if committed by an adult.

Any Certain Offenses

Lower Criminal Certain Capital Person Property Drug Weapon

State Age† Offense Felonies Crimes Murder Offenses Offenses Offenses Offenses

Arizona 8 14

Arkansas 10 14/16* 14 14 14 14

Colorado 10 14/16* 14 14 14 14

District of Columbia 16 16 16

Florida 16* 16 NS 14 14 14 14

Georgia NS

Louisiana 10 15 15 15 15

Massachusetts 7 14 14 14

Michigan 14 14 14 14 14

Montana 12/16* 12/16* 16 16 16

Nebraska 16 NS

Oklahoma 15 15/16* 15/16* 16 15

Vermont 10 16

Virginia 14 14

Wyoming 17 14
9

Note: “NS” indicates “none specified.”

†“Lower age” refers to the minimum age below which the juvenile court has no jurisdiction for delinquency matters.

*See appendix for more detail on State provisions.

Statutory Exclusion: Minimum Age and Offense Criteria, 1997

Reverse Waiver

The laws of 23 States provide some mechanism

whereby a juvenile who is being prosecuted as an

adult in criminal court may petition to have the case

transferred to juvenile court for adjudication or

disposition. By enacting a reverse waiver provision,

a State may simultaneously define a broad category

of cases that it considers merit criminal court handling and ensure that its courts have an opportunity

to consider whether such handling is actually appropriate in individual cases.

A statutory provision is placed in the reverse waiver

category if it authorizes the State’s adult criminal

courts to transfer a juvenile’s case from criminal to

juvenile court, however it arrived in the criminal

court in the first place—via direct file, exclusion, or

in some instances, waiver. The reverse waiver designation applies to provisions that authorize the criminal court to transfer a case for disposition to the

juvenile court, but does not apply to “blended sentencing” provisions under which the criminal court

retains the case while imposing a combination of

dispositions, some of which are ordinarily available

only to juvenile courts. Likewise, although many

States allow a juvenile who has been waived by a

juvenile court to appeal the decision immediately,

provisions authorizing an appeals court (as opposed

Any Certain Offenses

Lower Criminal Certain Capital Person Property Drug Weapon

State Age† Offense Felonies Crimes Murder Offenses Offenses Offenses Offenses

Alabama 16 16 16

Alaska 16 16

Arizona 8 15 15 15

Delaware 15

Florida NS NS/16*

Georgia 13 13

Idaho 14 14 14 14

Illinois 15 13/15* 15 15 15

Indiana 16 16 16 16 16

Iowa 16 16 16

Louisiana 10 15 15

Maryland 7 14 16 16 16

Massachusetts 7 14

Minnesota 10 16

Mississippi 10 13/17* 13

Montana 17 17 17 17 17

Nevada NS NS 16 16

New Mexico 15

New York 7 13/14* 14 14

Oklahoma 13

Oregon 15 15

Pennsylvania 10 NS/15* 15

South Carolina 16

South Dakota 10 16

Utah 16 16

Vermont 10 14 14 14

Washington 16 16 16

Wisconsin 10 10 NS
10

to a trial-level criminal court) to order a case returned to juvenile court are not counted as reverse

waiver provisions. Conversely, provisions that authorize a trial-level criminal court to make the decision

either to accept jurisdiction over a case for trial, or to

send it to juvenile court for adjudication, are considered reverse waiver provisions, even where (as in Virginia) they are designated “appeal” provisions.

Generally, when the reverse waiver proceeding represents the first time a court has had an opportunity

to consider the appropriateness of adult prosecution

in a given case—when the alleged offense is one that

is excluded from juvenile jurisdiction by statute, for

example, or when the prosecutor has exercised “direct file” discretion to proceed initially in criminal

court—the court’s decision is governed by the same

kinds of broad “best interests” standards and considerations as those taken into account by a juvenile

court in deciding whether to waive jurisdiction (see

Transfer Criteria). In Nebraska, for example, which

gives county attorneys considerable direct file discretion but requires them to consider a number of

factors (including “the best interests of the juvenile

and the security of the public”), the district or

county court must consider the very same factors in

deciding whether to retain jurisdiction over such a

case in the face of the juvenile’s objections.

However, six States (Connecticut, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, and Virginia) authorize

reverse waiver in some cases even when a juvenile

court judge has already looked into the issues and

determined that waiver to criminal court is appropriate. Under these circumstances, a reverse waiver

is usually available only if the juvenile court’s decision was substantially groundless (Mississippi), or if

other “exceptional circumstances” can be shown

(Nevada). Tennessee and Virginia have particularly

anomalous reverse waiver provisions. In Virginia, as

noted above, the procedure is cast in terms of an

“appeal” to the adult trial court from the juvenile

court’s transfer decision, with the issue being

whether the juvenile court’s decision was in substantial compliance with the law; however, in substance

the decision is the same as in other reverse waiver

situations—whether or not to accept jurisdiction and

retain the case for an adult criminal trial. In Tennessee, a juvenile who has been waived to criminal

court is entitled to an immediate de novo rehearing

on the issue at the adult criminal court level—but

only if the waiver decision was made by a nonlawyer; otherwise, the juvenile must appeal the juvenile

court’s waiver decision following a final conviction.

Twenty of the 35 States with direct file or statutory

exclusion also have reverse waiver provisions.

◆ States with reverse waivers: Arizona, Arkansas,

Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland,

Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York,

Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,

South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and

Wyoming.

◆ States without reverse waivers: Alabama,

Alaska, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho,

Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico,

Utah, and Washington.

Once an Adult/Always an Adult

A special transfer category has been created in 31

States for juveniles who, having once been prosecuted as adults, are subsequently accused of new

offenses. Most States with “once an adult/always an

adult” provisions simply require criminal prosecution of all such subsequent offenses—by means of

either a blanket exclusion or an automatic waiver

mechanism. Others exclude or require waiver of

only a broadly defined subset of these cases—those

involving juveniles of a certain age, for instance, or

those in which the subsequent offense is sufficiently

serious.

Nearly all once an adult/always an adult provisions

stipulate that the juvenile involved must have been

convicted of the offense that triggered the adult

prosecution. In California, however, this is not always necessary; a subsequent charge that would

ordinarily require a fitness hearing in juvenile court

may be filed directly in criminal court if the juvenile

involved was previously declared unfit for juvenile

handling and transferred to criminal court—even

if no conviction followed the original transfer—

provided the original unfitness determination was

based on criteria (the juvenile’s delinquency history,

failure of rehabilitation attempts, or both) unrelated

to the juvenile’s guilt or innocence of the previous
11

charge. Likewise, in Delaware, the law does not

require a conviction in the original case, provided

a court (either the juvenile court in a discretionary

waiver hearing or the criminal court following a

reverse waiver request) had the opportunity to make

a determination regarding the juvenile’s amenability

to the rehabilitative processes of the juvenile court.

Idaho requires adult prosecution of a juvenile who

has already been convicted as an adult, even if the

original conviction was for a lesser offense that

would not have been excluded from juvenile court

jurisdiction. Mississippi requires no conviction on

the first adult-prosecuted offense if the juvenile is

subsequently accused of a felony.

Although most States require that, following a

juvenile’s conviction as an adult, all subsequent

offenses be prosecuted in criminal court, three—

Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas—restrict the

coverage of their once an adult/always an adult provisions to cases in which juveniles are subsequently

accused of felonies, and California specifies that the

subsequent offense must be one for which waiver to

criminal court would otherwise be allowed. Likewise, whereas most States make no distinction based

on the ages of juveniles previously convicted as

adults, California and Iowa limit the application

of their once an adult/always an adult provisions to

16-year-olds. Oregon is the only State that leaves

the once an adult/always an adult decision to its

juvenile courts, authorizing them, in connection with

the waiver of jurisdiction over a juvenile of at least

16, to enter an order making waiver automatic in

any subsequent case involving the same juvenile;

however, if the juvenile is not convicted following

the entry of such an order, the law requires that the

order be vacated.

Many states require criminal prosecution of all subsequent offenses.

◆ States with once an adult/always an adult

provisions: Alabama, Arizona, California,

Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,

Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New

Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South

Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,

Washington, and Wisconsin.

◆ States without once an adult/always an adult

provisions: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado,

Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana,

Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,

North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, West

Virginia, and Wyoming.
13

Additional Analyses

Transfer for Nonviolent Offenses

Although State laws requiring or allowing the prosecution of juveniles as adults are commonly thought

to be legislative responses to increases in juvenile

violence, a surprising number of such laws authorize

criminal prosecution for nonviolent offenses.

Twenty-one States require or allow adult prosecution of juveniles accused of certain property offenses—most often arson or burglary. Statutes in 19

States authorize or mandate prosecution of juveniles

accused of drug offenses in criminal court. Forty-six

States allow waiver to criminal court for a range of

offenses—personal and property, violent and nonviolent. If the accused juvenile is of sufficient age, 16

States (Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Dakota, Tennessee, Washington,

Wisconsin, and Wyoming) permit waivers for any

criminal offense; 17 (Arizona, Colorado, District of

Columbia, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,

Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio,

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia) allow or require adult

prosecution for any felony; 6 (Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, South Carolina, and Texas)

allow or require adult prosecution for any felony of

a particular grade; and 9 authorize or mandate adult

handling of specified offenses that do not necessarily

involve violence, such as escape (Arkansas, Illinois,

Michigan, and Oregon), soliciting a minor to join a

street gang (Arkansas), “aggravated driving under

the influence” (Arizona), auto theft (New Jersey),

perjury (Texas) and treason (West Virginia). In

addition, many States require or allow prosecution

of juveniles as adults for misdemeanors, ordinance

violations, and summary statute violations (e.g., fish

and game violations).

Additional Pretransfer Findings

Required

Statutes in 30 States expressly require that, before

a case may be waived to criminal court, the juvenile

court must find probable cause to believe that the

juvenile actually committed the alleged offense. In

three States, although a probable cause finding is

not mandated, the list of factors for the court to

consider in making its waiver determination includes

the “prosecutive merit” of the case against the juvenile (see Transfer Criteria). In Maryland and the

District of Columbia, on the other hand, the laws

specify that, for purposes of the waiver determination, the juvenile’s guilt is to be assumed.

In seven States, in addition to other findings to support a waiver order, the court must determine that

the accused juvenile is not a fit subject for treatment

in an institution for the mentally ill or the mentally

retarded.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

Standard

Generally, a prosecutor seeking a waiver to criminal

court must make the case for waiver by “a preponderance of the evidence.” In six States, however,

a higher burden is specified: proof by “clear and

convincing evidence” that waiver is justified. Under

certain circumstances, the laws of four States impose

the “clear and convincing evidence” burden on the

juvenile who opposes waiver or seeks a transfer

from criminal to juvenile court.
14

Minimum Age and Offenses for Which a Juvenile Can Be Transferred to Criminal Court in

Every State, 1997

(continued)

Special Transfer Treatment Based

on Prior Record

Transfer statutes in 25 States single out juveniles

with specified prior offense histories for adverse

treatment. Of course, a sufficiently serious record

of past involvement with the law would often be

relevant to a waiver determination, and in fact this

is one factor for consideration suggested in the

U.S. Supreme Court’s Kent decision (see Transfer

Criteria). However, 25 States go further than this,

either by defining a direct file or statutory exclusion

category to include juveniles with previous delinquency adjudications or by requiring less of a showing for the waiver of juveniles with specified

delinquency histories.

Devices To Limit Prosecutorial

Discretion

Six States grant prosecutors discretion to decide

when to try juveniles as adults in court proceedings

but attempt to limit that discretion in some way. In

Florida, for example, in cases involving specified age/

offense categories, a State’s Attorney must either attempt an adult prosecution or provide the juvenile

court with written reasons for failing to do so. Before

exercising direct file authority to prosecute juveniles

as adults in Nebraska and Wyoming, prosecutors are

required to give consideration to the same kinds of

enumerated “factors” that are ordinarily weighed by

courts making waiver determinations.

Minimum Any Certain Offenses

Transfer Criminal Certain Capital Person Property Drug Weapon

State Age Offense Felonies Crimes Murder Offenses Offenses Offenses Offenses

Alabama 14 14 16 16 16

Alaska NS NS NS 16

Arizona NS NS 15 15

Arkansas 14 14* 14 14 14 14

California 14 16 16 14 14 14 14

Colorado 12 12* 12 12 14 14

Connecticut 14 14 14 14

Delaware NS NS/14* 15 NS NS* 16 16

District of Columbia NS 16* 15 15 15 15 NS

Florida NS NS NS 14 NS* 14 14

Georgia NS 15 NS 13 13 15

Hawaii NS 14* NS

Idaho NS 14 NS NS NS NS NS

Illinois 13 13 15 13* 15 15 15

Indiana NS 14 NS 10* 16 16 16

Iowa 14 14* 16 16 16

Kansas 10 10 14 14 14 14

Kentucky 14 14 14

Louisiana 14 14 14 15 15

Maine NS NS NS

Maryland NS 15 NS 16 16 16

Massachusetts 14 14 14 14 14

Michigan 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Minnesota 14 14 16

Mississippi 13 13 13* 13

Missouri 12 12

Montana 12 12* 12* 16 16 16
15

Minimum Age and Offenses for Which a Juvenile Can Be Transferred to Criminal Court in

Every State, 1997 (continued)

Note: “NS” indicates “none specified.”

*See appendix for more detail on State provisions.

Minimum Age Provisions

Twenty-three States have at least one provision for

transferring juveniles to criminal court for which no

minimum age is specified. Other sections of the

State statute may specify the lowest age for juvenile

court delinquency jurisdiction, below which juveniles cannot be processed as delinquents in juvenile

court (16 States), and/or the lowest age for criminal

responsibility, below which children cannot be tried

in criminal court (14 States).

As States lower the age at which youth can be transferred to criminal court, minimum age of criminal

responsibility becomes important in deciding when

and if a criminal court can accept jurisdiction of

such youth. In two States, the juvenile code does not

stipulate a minimum transfer age but the criminal

code does specify a minimum age of criminal responsibility (Georgia for capital crimes; Nevada for murder).

Minimum Any Certain Offenses

Transfer Criminal Certain Capital Person Property Drug Weapon

State Age Offense Felonies Crimes Murder Offenses Offenses Offenses Offenses

Nebraska NS 16 NS

Nevada NS NS 14 NS 14 14

New Hampshire 13 15 13 13 15

New Jersey 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

New Mexico 15 15

New York 13 13* 14 14

North Carolina 13 13 13

North Dakota 14 16 14 14 14 14

Ohio 14 14 14 14* 16 16

Oklahoma NS NS 13 15* 15* 16 15

Oregon NS 15 NS NS* 15

Pennsylvania NS 14 NS* 15

Rhode Island NS 16 NS 17 17

South Carolina NS 16 14 NS NS* 14 14

South Dakota NS NS

Tennessee NS 16 NS NS

Texas 14 14 14

Utah 14 14 16 16 16 16

Vermont 10 16 10 10 10

Virginia 14 14 14 14

Washington NS NS 16 16 16

West Virginia NS NS* NS NS NS NS

Wisconsin NS 15 14 10 NS 14 14

Wyoming 13 13 14
16

Age (years)

7 8 10 12 13 14

Oklahoma* Nevada Colorado Oregon Georgia California

Washington† Illinois Idaho

New Hampshire New Jersey

New York Texas

Utah

Lowest Age of Criminal Responsibility/Criminal Court Jurisdiction, 1997

*For youth ages 7 to 14, the State must prove that, at the time of the act, the youth knew it was wrong.

 †Youth ages 8 to 12 are presumed incapable of committing a crime.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

No Specified Lowest Age

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio
17

Age (years)

6 7 8 10

North Carolina Maryland Arizona Arkansas Pennsylvania

Massachusetts Colorado South Dakota

New York Kansas Texas

Minnesota Vermont

Mississippi Wisconsin

Lowest Age for Original Juvenile Court Jurisdiction in Delinquency Matters, 1997

Alabama

Alaska

California

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Maine

Michigan

Missouri

Montana

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming

No Specified Lowest Age

Nebraska

Nevada

New Mexico

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma
Appendix: Summary of Transfer Laws

The State-by-State summary of transfer laws contained in the appendix is based on an analysis of statutory

provisions authorizing or requiring adult criminal prosecution of juveniles for serious and violent crimes in all

50 States and the District of Columbia. The summary reflects the state of the law as amended through the

1997 legislative sessions.

Lower and Upper Ages

For each State, the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction is provided—this is the age beyond which the

juvenile courts of that State have no original jurisdiction over individual offenders. In addition, if the State

specifies a minimum age below which the juvenile courts have no jurisdiction for delinquency matters, that

age is provided as well.

Discretionary Waiver

If the State has a provision that gives juvenile court judges discretion to waive jurisdiction over individual

cases involving minors to allow prosecution in adult criminal courts, the provision is described under Discretionary Waiver. (These and all descriptive summaries of statutory provisions are matters of analysis and

interpretation; readers should consult the statutes on which these summaries are based for the exact law in a

given jurisdiction.) Beneath this description is a list of offense categories for which discretionary waiver may

be authorized: “any criminal” for provisions that allow waiver for any criminal offense;

“certain felonies” when the offense must be a felony or one of a range of felonies; “capital” when the offense

must be punishable by death or life imprisonment; “murder” for any sort of homicide or attempted homicide;

“person” for all other offenses against the person; “property” for property offenses; “drug” for drug offenses;

and “weapon” for offenses consisting of the unlawful possession, transfer, etc., of weapons. If the State allows

waiver for a particular category of offense, additional information is entered next to that category. If the State

allows waiver for a category of offense, but only for offenders of a certain age, the minimum age is specified;

otherwise, “none specified” is entered. (To meet a minimum age requirement, the juvenile must have reached

the age specified before the offense was committed.) Under “offense detail,” a more specific description of the

offense that may trigger the waiver is provided, including any requirements that the accused juvenile have a

prior record of delinquency adjudications or criminal convictions.

Mandatory Waiver

A State that requires its juvenile courts to waive cases under certain circumstances is specified under mandatory waiver. Mandatory waiver is not the same as statutory exclusion. In a mandatory waiver situation, the

juvenile court must receive the case initially, conduct some sort of preliminary hearing to ensure that the

mandatory waiver statute applies, and issue a transfer order and other necessary orders relating to appointment of counsel, interim detention, and so on. By contrast, when an offense has been excluded by law from

juvenile court jurisdiction, the case originates in criminal court, and the juvenile court ordinarily has no involvement.

Presumptive Waiver

If the State designates a category of cases in which waiver to criminal court is rebuttably presumed to be

appropriate, a description of the pertinent law is included under Presumptive Waiver. Again, beneath the

description is a breakdown of the offense categories triggering the presumption, any minimum age and prior

record requirements that apply, and other details.

A–3
Appendix: Summary of Transfer Laws

Direct File

If the State allows prosecutors, in certain kinds of cases, to choose between filing a petition in juvenile court

and proceeding against the juvenile in criminal court, a descriptive entry is made under Direct File.

Statutory Exclusion

If the State simply excludes any category of cases from juvenile court jurisdiction, the provision is described

under Statutory Exclusion.

Reverse Waiver

Provisions that permit a juvenile who is being prosecuted as an adult in criminal court to petition to have the

case transferred to juvenile court for adjudication or disposition are described under Reverse Waiver.

Once an Adult/Always

If the State has a special provision that permanently terminates the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over juveniles

who have once been prosecuted as adults, the provision is described under the heading Once an Adult/

Always.

A hard copy of this Report, including the appendix, entitled “Summary of Transfer Laws,” is available from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000, 800–638–8736, 301–519–5212

(fax), E-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org.

A–4
Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected.

We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues,

and reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, it you reprint, please

cite OJJDP and any other authors found on the title page. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you received a copy, how you intend to

use the information, and how OJJDP materials meet your individual or

agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (Fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org
Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a variety of publications—

Fact Sheets, Bulletins, Summaries, Reports,

and the Juvenile Justice journal—along with

videotapes, including broadcasts from the

juvenile justice telecommunications initiative.

Through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC), these publications and other

resources are as close as your phone, fax,

computer, or mailbox.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7:00 p.m. ET)

Fax:

301–519–5212

Online:

OJJDP Home Page:

www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm

E-Mail:

puborder@ncjrs.org (to order materials)

askncjrs@ncjrs.org (to ask questions

about materials)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Fact Sheets and Bulletins are also available

through Fax-on-Demand.

Fax-on-Demand:

800–638–8736, select option 1, select option 2,

and listen for instructions

To ensure timely notice of new publications,

subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic

mailing list.

JUVJUST Mailing List:

e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

leave the subject line blank

type subscribe juvjust your name

In addition, JJC, through the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), is the

repository for tens of thousands of criminal and

juvenile justice publications and resources from

around the world. They are abstracted and

made available through a data base, which is

searchable online (www.ncjrs.org/database.htm).

You are also welcome to submit materials to

JJC for inclusion in the data base.

The following list highlights popular and recently

published OJJDP documents and videotapes,

grouped by topical areas.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Brochure (1996, NCJ 144527 (23

pp.)) offers more information about the agency.

The OJJDP Publications List (BC000115) offers

a complete list of OJJDP publications and is

also available online.

Corrections and Detention

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of

Confinement for Youth in Custody. 1998,

NCJ 164727 (116 pp.).

Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders. 1997,

NCJ 164258 (42 pp.).

Conditions of Confinement Teleconference

(Video). 1993, NCJ 147531 (90 min.), $14.00.

Effective Programs for Serious, Violent and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders Teleconference

(Video). 1996, NCJ 160947 (120 min.), $17.00.

Juvenile Arrests 1996. 1997, NCJ 167578

(12 pp.).

Juvenile Boot Camps Teleconference (Video).

1996, NCJ 160949 (120 min.), $17.00.

Juvenile Court Statistics 1995. 1998,

NCJ 170607 (112 pp.).

Courts

Has the Juvenile Court Outlived Its Usefulness?

Teleconference (Video). 1996, NCJ 163929

(120 min.), $17.00.

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1995. 1997,

NCJ 167885 (12 pp.).

RESTTA National Directory of Restitution

and Community Service Programs. 1998,

NCJ 166365 (500 pp.), $33.50.

Delinquency Prevention

1997 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention

Programs. 1998, NCJ 170605 (71 pp.).

Allegheny County, PA: Mobilizing To Reduce

Juvenile Crime. 1997, NCJ 165693 (12 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Report).

1996, NCJ 157106 (200 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Summary).

1996, NCJ 157105 (36 pp.).

Communities Working Together Teleconference

(Video). 1996, NCJ 160946 (120 min.), $17.00.

Mentoring—A Proven Delinquency Prevention

Strategy. 1997, NCJ 164834 (8 pp.).

Mentoring for Youth in Schools and Communities

Teleconference (Video). 1997, NCJ 166376

(120 min.), $17.00

Mobilizing Communities To Prevent Juvenile

Crime. 1997, NCJ 165928 (8 pp.).

Reaching Out to Youth Out of the Education

Mainstream. 1997, NCJ 163920 (12 pp.).

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. 1998,

NCJ 170027 (8 pp.).

Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth:

The MST Approach. 1997, NCJ 165151 (8 pp.).

The Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under

Age 15. 1997, NCJ 165256 (12 pp.).

Youth-Oriented Community Policing Teleconference (Video). 1996, NCJ 160947 (120 min.),

$17.00.

Youth Out of the Education Mainstream Teleconference (Video). 1996, NCJ 163386 (120

min.), $17.00.

Gangs

1995 National Youth Gang Survey. 1997,

NCJ 164728 (41 pp.).

Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior. 1997,

NCJ 165154 (6 pp.).

Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998, NCJ 167249

(20 pp.).

Youth Gangs in America Teleconference

(Video). 1997, NCJ 164937 (120 min.), $17.00.

General Juvenile Justice

Comprehensive Juvenile Justice in State

Legislatures Teleconference (Video). 1998,

NCJ 169593 (120 min.), $17.00.

Developmental Pathways in Boys’ Disruptive

and Delinquent Behavior. 1997, NCJ 165692

(20 pp.).

Guidelines for the Screening of Persons Working With Children, the Elderly, and Individuals

With Disabilities in Need of Support. 1998,

NCJ 167248 (52 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume III, Number 2. 1997,

NCJ 165925 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume IV, Number 2. 1997,

NCJ 166823 (28 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume V, Number 1. 1998,

NCJ 170025 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States

1994–1996. 1997, NCJ 165697 (81 pp.).

A Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century.

1998, NCJ 169726 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update

on Violence. 1997, NCJ 165703 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National

Report. 1995, NCJ 153569 (188 pp.).

Keeping Young People in School: Community

Programs That Work. 1997, NCJ 162783

(12 pp.).

Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act and

Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs.

1997, NCJ 163705 (52 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Court Appointed Special Advocates: A Voice

for Abused and Neglected Children in Court.

1997, NCJ 164512 (4 pp.).

Federal Resources on Missing and Exploited

Children: A Directory for Law Enforcement and

Other Public and Private Agencies. 1997,

NCJ 168962 (156 pp.).

In the Wake of Childhood Maltreatment. 1997,

NCJ 165257 (16 pp.).

Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse:

An Overview. 1997, NCJ 165153 (8 pp.).

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 1998, NCJ 170022 (96 pp.).

Substance Abuse

Beyond the Bench: How Judges Can Help Reduce Juvenile DUI and Alcohol and Other Drug

Violations (Video and discussion guide). 1996,

NCJ 162357 (16 min.), $17.00.

Capacity Building for Juvenile Substance

Abuse Treatment. 1997, NCJ 167251 (12 pp.).

Drug Identification and Testing in the Juvenile

Justice System. 1998, NCJ 167889 (92 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Drug Treatment:

Promising Approaches Teleconference (Video).

1997, NCJ 168617 (120 min.), $17.00.

Preventing Drug Abuse Among Youth Teleconference (Video). 1997, NCJ 165583 (120 min.),

$17.00.

Violence and Victimization

Child Development–Community Policing:

Partnership in a Climate of Violence. 1997,

NCJ 164380 (8 pp.).

Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in

Schools. 1998, NCJ 167888 (16 pp.).

Conflict Resolution for Youth Teleconference

(Video). 1996, NCJ 161416 (150 min.), $17.00.

Epidemiology of Serious Violence. 1997,

NCJ 165152 (12 pp.).

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders. 1995, NCJ 153571 (6 pp.).

Reducing Youth Gun Violence Teleconference

(Video). 1996, NCJ 162421 (120 min.), $17.00.

Youth in Action

Planning a Successful Crime Prevention

Project. 1998, NCJ 170024 (28 pp.).
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

Permit No. G–91

NCJ 172836