Opinion ID: 1709584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: equal protection under article i, ง 1 of the wisconsin constitution and the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution

Text: ถ 65. The juveniles' final argument is that the denial of the right to a jury trial violates the equal protection clauses of the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. They argue that they are denied equal protection under Wis. Stat. ch. 938 because juveniles and adults subject to Wis. Stats. chs. 48, 51, 55 and 980 are entitled to a jury trial. [17] [23-25] ถ 66. This court has previously concluded that the equal protection clauses of the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions are equivalent for purposes of interpretation. See Reginald D., 193 Wis. 2d at 307. Equal protection requires that there exist reasonable and practical grounds for the classifications created by the legislature. See id. at 308. In State v. McManus, 152 Wis. 2d 113, 131, 447 N.W.2d 654 (1989) this court stated: Equal protection does not deny a state the power to treat persons within its jurisdiction differently; rather, the state retains broad discretion to create classifications so long as the classifications have a reasonable basis. The fact a statutory classification results in some inequity...does not provide sufficient grounds for invalidating a legislative enactment. Where...a suspect classification is not alleged, the legislative enactment must be sustained unless it is `patently arbitrary' and bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. If the classification is reasonable and practical in relation to the objective, that is sufficient and doubts must be resolved in favor of the reasonableness of the classification. (Internal citations omitted.) ถ 67. Where a suspect class or a fundamental right is involved, a reviewing court must apply a level of scrutiny more strict than the rational basis test. Under the strict scrutiny test, the State must prove that the classification is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest in order to withstand the constitutional challenge. State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 319, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995). ถ 68. In N.E., 122 Wis. 2d at 207, this court concluded that a juvenile's then-existing statutory right to a jury trial was a non-fundamental right. In addition, the juveniles in this case do not argue that they are members of a suspect class. Moreover, courts in other jurisdictions have previously determined that juveniles are not a suspect class for purposes of an equal protection analysis. See, e.g., State v. Stackhouse, 947 P.2d 777, 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). Therefore, the appropriate standard of review in this case is to consider whether the legislature had a rational basis for eliminating juveniles' statutory right to a jury trial. [26] ถ 69. Where our inquiry is whether a rational basis exists for the legislature's classification, it is our obligation to locate or to construct, if possible, a rationale that might have influenced the legislature and that reasonably upholds the legislative determination. Tomczak v. Bailey, 218 Wis. 2d 245, 264, 578 N.W.2d 166 (1998) (quoting Sambs v. City of Brookfield, 97 Wis. 2d 356, 371, 293 N.W.2d 504 (1980)). Our analysis of the legislature's classification requires only that [we] locate some reasonable basis for the classification made. Tomczak, 218 Wis. 2d at 269 n.14 (quoting Omernik v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 6, 19, 218 N.W.2d 734 (1974)). We conclude that a reasonable basis exists in this case. ถ 70. In enacting the JJC, the JJSC and the legislature expressed concerns about negating delays in the juvenile justice system. The JJSC recommended that [t]he system should operate more efficiently through streamlining of processes and improved access to information by entities that work with juvenile delinquents. JJSC Report at 7 (emphasis supplied). This concern is also evidenced in Wis. Stat. ง 938.01(2)(e), which states that one of the purposes of the JJC is [t]o divert juveniles from the juvenile justice system through early intervention ... (Emphasis supplied.) ถ 71. This desire for immediate intervention bears a reasonable and practical relationship to the legislature's desire to rehabilitate and treat juvenile offenders and protect the public. McManus, 152 Wis. 2d at 131. Similar language is not found in Wis. Stat. chs. 48, 51, 55, and 980. The distinct nature of juvenile delinquency proceedings and the objectives of the legislature evince that there is a rational basis for attempting to streamline the proceedings by not affording juveniles the right to a jury trial. ถ 72. The objectives of the Wisconsin Legislature for immediate intervention were objectives recognized by the United States Supreme Court in McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 550, when the Court stated that, if a jury trial were injected into the juvenile court system as a matter of right, it would bring with it into that system the traditional delay, the formality and the clamor of the adversary system. The objectives of the Wisconsin Legislature in relation to the JJC are also similar to those noted by the Colorado Supreme Court: The juvenile system is premised on the concept that a more informal, simple, and speedy judicial setting will best serve the needs and welfare of juvenile defendants.... A separate juvenile system was formed to delay placement of juveniles into the formal machinery of the judicial system. J.T. v. O'Rourke, 651 P.2d 407, 412 n.5 (Colo. 1982). [27] ถ 73. It is this court's responsibility to attempt to locate a rationale for the legislature's classification that reasonably upholds the legislative determination. Id., at 264. Based upon the legislature's stated objectives in the JJC, and other persuasive authority cited herein, we conclude that the need for early intervention in the JJC is a reasonable basis for requiring that the trier of fact in a juvenile delinquency proceeding be the juvenile court judge. Accordingly, we conclude that the juveniles' rights guaranteed under the equal protection clauses of the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions have not been violated.