Opinion ID: 1722349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juvenile delinquency adjudication

Text: Mr. Snyder fails to cite the law applicable in 1991 to admissibility of juvenile adjudications in subsequent criminal proceedings. He contends, however, that it would have made the adjudication inadmissible in the proceedings now before us. The current law dealing with admissibility of juvenile adjudications in subsequent criminal-trial sentencing proceedings is found in Act 535 of 1993, § 2(c)(3) and Act 551 of 1993, § 2(c)(3). Those acts are codified as Ark.Code Ann. § 16-97-103 (Supp.1997). Section 16-97-103(3)(i) provides that prior juvenile adjudications are admissible only if the relevant value of the adjudication outweighs its prejudicial value. Mr. Snyder does not argue on appeal that his prior adjudication is inadmissible based on this provision. The statutory provision also provides that prior juvenile delinquency adjudications can only be admitted for crimes for which the juvenile could have been tried as an adult. § 16-97-103(3)(ii). Mr. Snyder, whose prior adjudication was based on rape, does not contend that he could not have been tried as an adult based on his crime of rape. The only time limitation on use of such an adjudication in the sentencing phase of a trial resulting from a subsequently committed offense is, That in no event shall delinquency adjudications for acts occurring more than ten (10) years prior to the commission of the offense charged be considered;.... § 16-97-103(3)(iii). Mr. Snyder does not contend that the acts for which he was adjudicated delinquent occurred more than ten years prior to the acts of which he stands convicted in the case now before us. Mr. Snyder argues that the admission of the prior juvenile delinquency adjudication violates the ex post facto clause, citing Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 27, 101 S.Ct. 960, 963, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), in which the United States Supreme Court stated: [O]ur decisions prescribe that two critical elements must be present for a criminal or penal law to be ex post facto: it must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it. He contends that § 16-97-103 was applied retrospectively and that he was disadvantaged by its application. Assuming that there was a law in 1991 that would have prevented admissibility of Mr. Snyder's juvenile delinquency adjudication in a subsequent criminal trial, we cannot agree that application of the law applicable at the time of the subsequent trial would violate the ex post facto principle. The United States Supreme Court, in California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995), stated that although the Weaver case suggested that enhancements to the measure of criminal punishment fall within the ex post facto prohibition because they operate to the `disadvantage' of covered offenders, ... that language was unnecessary to the results in those cases and is inconsistent with the framework developed in Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 41, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2718-19, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990). Id. at 506 n. 3, 115 S.Ct. at 1601-02 n. 3. The Supreme Court further explained that [a]fter Collins , the focus of the ex post facto inquiry is not on whether a legislative change produces some ambiguous sort of `disadvantage,' nor, ... on whether an amendment affects a prisoner's `opportunity to take advantage of provisions for early release,' ... but on whether any such change alters the definition of criminal conduct or increases the penalty by which a crime is punishable. Id. Mr. Snyder does not argue that the admissibility of the evidence of the prior juvenile adjudication changed the nature or definition of the offense for which he was tried and convicted or that it increased the penalty. It is thus clear to us that the ex post facto principle was not violated. Cogburn v. State, 292 Ark. 564, 732 S.W.2d 807 (1987); Smith v. State, 291 Ark. 163, 722 S.W.2d 853 (1987). Although not in the context of considering a prior juvenile adjudication, we have held that the provisions for admissibility of evidence in a sentencing proceeding found in § 16-97-103 do not violate the ex post facto principle. Williams v. State, 318 Ark. 846, 887 S.W.2d 530 (1994). We affirm the conviction.