Second, while acknowledging that due process is a fundamental requirement in both the criminal and juvenile courts, the State attempts to discern a difference in the process in the respective tribunals. Thus, the State contends, unlike a jury, the juvenile judge is both the arbiter of the law and the determiner of the facts and thus, is in the best position to assess what amendments may fairly be made to a delinquency petition in order to conform to the evidence and serve the objectives of the Juvenile Code. Last, the State asserts that no prejudice has been demonstrated. We are not persuaded. To adopt the State's position would give hollow meaning to this declaration.
Due process protects an accused against unfair prejudice in conducting an adversarial proceeding.
It is such a fundamental link to achieving justice, it ought not be rationed according to age. If unfair prejudice prevails in an adversarial proceeding, regardless of the forum, justice cannot. The record reveals that Tawanna was accused of one charge, battery. There is no indication in the State's trial presentation of an intention to submit proofs for any other charge. It is evident from the trial transcript that the three witnesses called by the defense were there for the sole purpose to testify about the alleged battery, and that the cross-examination of the two State witnesses related solely to the battery charge.