Opinion ID: 2373688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Juvenile Record

Text: At the penalty stage, the Custodian of Juvenile records of the Family Court was permitted to read Appellant's record of juvenile adjudications for delinquent acts committed when he was not yet eighteen years of age. The juvenile adjudication record is as follows (T.T., October 4, 1985, pp. 8.30-8.31): January 1, 1978 burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and criminal conspiracy. January 27, 1978 burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and criminal conspiracy. September 10, 1978 burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, criminal trespass, criminal conspiracy. April 27, 1979 burglary, criminal trespass, attempted theft, criminal conspiracy. November 27, 1980 burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, criminal trespass, criminal conspiracy. January 4, 1982 robbery, theft, terroristic threats, aggravated and simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, possession of an instrument of crime, possession of a weapon, and criminal conspiracy. Appellant complains on three grounds: 1) that a juvenile adjudication, as defined by the Juvenile Act, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, Sec. 2, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6354, should not have been admitted into evidence because it does not constitute a conviction for purposes of capital sentencing; 2) that while robbery and aggravated assault are crimes of violence, burglary is not; and 3) that it was error to allow the reading to the jury of adjudications other than those for robbery and aggravated assault because those adjudications were not proven to have had the potential for violence or involved actual violence, so that the Commonwealth's evidence was nothing more than mere labels. In the alternative, Appellant asserts that if all the other acts, including especially the burglary, are abstracted from consideration, the remaining count of robbery and count of aggravated assault are insufficient for a finding of significant history of prior criminal convictions as an aggravating circumstance. We reject these contentions. Regarding his first argument that juvenile adjudications are not convictions for the specific purpose of finding an aggravating circumstance for sentencing, we find no basis of support in either statutory law or case law. This Commonwealth established a separate court with exclusive jurisdiction over accused minors in 1933. Up to that time, youthful offenders were tried equally with adults in the Quarter Sessions Courts. Act of June 2, 1933, P.L.1933, 11 P.S. § 261. Section 19 provided: No order made by any juvenile court shall operate to impose any of the civil disabilities ordinarily imposed by the criminal laws of the Commonwealth, nor shall any child be deemed to be a criminal by reason of any such order or be deemed to have been convicted of crime. The disposition of a child or any evidence given in a juvenile court shall not be admissible as evidence against the child in any case or proceeding in any other court. (Footnote omitted). The contemporary counterpart appears in 42 Pa.C.S. 6354: [8] Section 6354. Effect of adjudication (a) General Rule.  An order of disposition or other adjudication in a proceeding under this chapter is not a conviction of crime and does not impose any civil disability ordinarily resulting from a conviction or operate to disqualify the child in any civil service application or appointment. (b) Effect in subsequent judicial matters.  The disposition of a child under this chapter may not be used against him in any proceeding in any court other than a subsequent juvenile hearing, whether before or after reaching majority, except: (1) in dispositional proceedings after conviction of a felony for the purposes of a presentence investigation and report. Both this Court and the Superior Court found occasion to rule on the issue of whether a record of delinquency could be employed for the determination of sentence of an adult criminal under the Act of 1933, and in each instance of review, these tribunals determined that the juvenile acts indeed were admissible for that purpose. Our seminal case on point is Commonwealth ex rel. Hendrikson v. Myers, 393 Pa. 224, 144 A.2d 367 (1958), where the majority held (Justice Musmanno dissenting on the grounds that the juvenile record was unclear), specifically addressing Section 19, that while the delinquent record could not be used as evidence . . . in another court, to deprive the Courts of the right to be informed of and to consider the history and background of the person subject to sentence may result in sentences which are unjust and unfair to both society and defendants. Myers, 393 Pa. at 231, 144 A.2d at 371 (affirming the Superior Court's holding that the judge was entitled to all of the material facts to inform him as to what kind of offender he was dealing with to assist him in determining the appropriate penalty. 182 Pa.Superior Ct. 169, 173-174, 126 A.2d 485, 486-487 [1956]). The Superior Court in Myers, in fact, baldly concluded that the statute was not applicable to prevent the sentencing judge from considering the defendant's juvenile court record. 182 Pa.Superior Ct. at 174, 126 A.2d at 487. The rationale behind both decisions in Myers derived from our previous ruling in Commonwealth v. Petrillo, 340 Pa. 33, 16 A.2d 50 (1940), where we settled on the broader principle that sentencing judges have wide latitude in considering facts, regardless of whether such facts are produced by witnesses whom the court sees and hears. Petrillo was a death case. Petrillo's principle was applied in the same manner in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 348 Pa. 349, 354, 35 A.2d 312, 314 (1944). Moreover, the Superior Court applied Petrillo to the 1933 Act and approved the use of juvenile records as sentencing considerations. See, Commonwealth ex rel. Miller v. Maroney, 179 Pa.Superior Ct. 305, 116 A.2d 755 (1955); Commonwealth ex rel. Yeschenko v. Keenan, 179 Pa.Superior Ct. 145, 115 A.2d 386 (1955); and Commonwealth ex rel. Czarnecki v. Stitzel, 179 Pa.Superior Ct. 80, 115 A.2d 805 (1955). More recent decisions by the Superior Court have affirmed uniformly this rule. Commonwealth v. Woodward, 368 Pa.Superior Ct. 363, 534 A.2d 478 (1987); allocatur denied, 520 Pa. 575, 549 A.2d 135 (1988); Commonwealth v. Krum, 367 Pa.Superior Ct. 511, 533 A.2d 134 (1987); Commonwealth v. Morio, 302 Pa.Superior Ct. 407, 448 A.2d 1106 (1982); and Commonwealth v. Allen, 287 Pa.Superior Ct. 88, 429 A.2d 1113 (1981) (citing Myers ). While further analysis of this issue may appear to be superfluous in light of this well-settled authority, we take the opportunity to draw further attention to the fact that Pennsylvania adheres to a system of individualized sentencing which must explore the defendant's prior behavior and dangerousness before sanctions are imposed. For the care of capital sentencing, indeed, is a function of character analysis . . . and the central idea of the present sentencing statute is to allow a jury to take into account such relevant information, bearing on a defendant's character and record, as is applicable to the task of considering the enumerated aggravating circumstances. Commonwealth v. Beasley, 505 Pa. 279, 479 A.2d 460 (1984) (citation omitted). Such contemporary language reflects the earlier rationale of Petrillo and Myers. In testing Appellant's allegations against our continuing rule on this issue, therefore, we find no merit whatsoever to his assertion. Appellant's claim that burglary is not a crime of violence runs directly counter to our decision in Commonwealth v. Rolan, 520 Pa. 1, 549 A.2d 553 (1988), where we determined that for purposes of finding an aggravating circumstance the crime of burglary has always been and continues to be viewed as a crime involving the use or threat of violence to the person. His last allegation, i.e., that it was error to disclose to the jury that Appellant had juvenile adjudications not proven to have had potential for violence or the use of actual violence, was put to rest by Commonwealth v. Thomas, 522 Pa. 256, 561 A.2d 699 (1989). Here each of the crimes read into the record was part of a burglary or robbery. The crimes arose out of the same acts as those utilized to establish an aggravating circumstance, thereby meeting fully the mandate of Thomas: Evidence of this crime [indecent assault] was admissible because there was a logical connection between the crimes and because they arose out of the same criminal episode. Thomas, supra, at 276, 561 A.2d at 708; also, see, Commonwealth v. Steele, 522 Pa. 61, 559 A.2d 904 (1989).