Document: 391 U.S. 341 88 S.Ct. 1507 20 L.Ed.2d 625 In the Matter of Buddy Lynn WHITTINGTON, Petitioner. No. 701. Argued April 2, 1968. Decided May 20, Jack Supman and Daniel A. Rezneck, for petitioner. E. Raymond Morehart, Lancaster, Ohio, Merritt W. Green, Toledo, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, who was 14 years old at time, adjudged a delinquent by Juvenile Court Fairfield County, on September 7, 1966, basis trial judge's finding that there 'probable cause' to believe he had committed crime would be felony if an adult, namely, second-degree murder. Petitioner appealed Ohio Appeals contending proceeding in which resulted order adjudicating him violated his rights under Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically argued been determined unconstitutionally low standard proof, denied constitutional jury, impartial tribunal, bail pending disposition case against him; also contended privilege self-incrimination admission into evidence statements made response questioning from police officers. The rejected these contentions affirmed judgment January 3, 1967. 13 App.2d 11, 223 N.E.2d 333. On March 15, 1967, Supreme sua sponte, dismissed petitioner's further appeal ground it presented 'no substantial question.' then filed petition certiorari this Court, we granted, 389 819, 112, 19 69 (1967), raising same issues courts. 2 Under law adjudication child is can have numerous consequences. For example, once such determination may place variety state institutions or foster home. Rev. Code § 2151.35. Another alternative where has found bind over Common Pleas criminal statutes applicable adults. 2151.26.* At time no beyond itself ordering physical mental examination petitioner Court. We since informed parties bound as adult indicted first-degree 3 State argues vigorously that, because subsequently delinquency merely equivalent probable cause hearing adult. other hand, asserts final purposes appellate review consequences decision continue despite supervening transfer jurisdiction resolution dispute crucial many petitioner, since, ordinary hearings involving adults right either jury guilt reasonable doubt. unresolved question not whether final, appealable order. considered issue ruled appealable, necessarily accepted conclusion its dismissal based jurisdictional issue. courts settled what, any, effect 'disposition' order, entered after their decisions here, upon prior 4 issues, relies havily re Gault, 387 1, 87 1428, 18 527, decided some two months case. held squarely, first various federal guarantees accompanying proceedings were juvenile court possible commitment institution involved. Because opportunity assess impact claims, deem appropriate vacate remand reconsideration light Gault. Upon remand, may, course, consider impact, questions raised intervening requiring face 5 vacated remanded County consideration 527 (1967). 6 Vacated remanded. 7 Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom BLACK joins, dissenting. 8 I dismiss before us within our 28 U.S.C. 1257. Eastman v. 299 505, 57 21, 81 L.Ed. 374 (1936); Polakow's Realty Experts, Inc. Alabama, 319 750, 63 1155, 1705 (1943); see Berman United States, 302 211, 212, 58 164, 82 204 (1937); Edwards People California, 314 160, 171, 62 86 119 (1941); R. Stern & Gressman, Practice 3—15 (3d ed. 1962); Robertson Kirkham's Jurisdiction 39 (R. Wolfson P. Kurland, eds. 1951). Court's formal but case; did relinquish court, probation, commit institution. Since however, relinquishing court. That now falling reach jurisdiction. If properly now, raise constitutionality procedures employed determine prerequisite (as law) do turnover require all formalities should attend itself. great doubt case, any normally attach it, way survive guilty verdict * addition, specifically provides respect sentencing probation subsequent proceedings. Rev.Code general discussion practical juveniles record, President's Commission Law Enforcement Administration Justice, Challenge Crime Free Society 66—67, 75 Task Force Report: Delinquency Youth 92—93, 360 361, 385, 417—418

Category: 1