Court Opinion

ID: 9593127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:19:56.731932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:19.551039
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent. If a child is charged with a public offense, his or her guilt should be determined in a delinquency proceeding where he or she is afforded his or her constitutional safeguards, not in a child in need of assistance proceedings where certain of these constitutional rights are denied. The majority’s opinion denies a child this right.
W.R.C., a thirteen-year-old boy, I’ll call Wilbur, allegedly committed sexual abuse. The State filed two petitions, (1) a delinquency petition charging Wilbur with the violations, and (2) a petition seeking to have Wilbur found a child in need of assistance on the basis that he had committed the offense he was charged with committing in the delinquency petition. The delinquency petition was dismissed, and the juvenile court went forward to find in the child in need of assistance proceedings that Wilbur had committed the offense.
The majority has agreed with the juvenile court’s determination. Wilbur appeals contending he was found guilty of a public offense in a trial that did not afford him his constitutional safeguards. I agree with Wilbur that he has been found to have committed a public offense in a trial that did not afford him his constitutional rights. In In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 30, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1445, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, 548 (1967), the court determined a juvenile charged with committing a public offense is afforded the five basic constitutional rights. Wilbur was denied his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. See Gault, 387 U.S. at 57, 87 S.Ct. at 1459, 18 L.Ed.2d at 562-63. Much of the evidence, the majority and the trial court relied on in determining Wilbur committed the offense came in through written reports. Wilbur was denied the constitutional safeguard of being found guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1075, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 377 (1970). The court established that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is among the essentials of due process and fair treatment during the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult.
The majority only finds clear and convincing evidence Wilbur committed the offense. The majority does not find the evidence at trial, including the evidence that came in by way of written report, proved Wilbur had beyond a reasonable doubt committed the offense. I agree with the majority the evidence introduced at trial does not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilbur was guilty of the offense. The testimony of the only witness that testified was not strong. She contradicted herself numerous times.
I recognize the juvenile court is for the protection of children, and sometimes we tend to relax procedural due process and take shortcuts when we feel what we are doing is in the best interest of the child. However, I cannot subscribe to finding a child has committed sexual abuse in a trial where his constitutional rights have not been afforded him.
In Gault, 387 U.S. at 18-19, 87 S.Ct. at 1439, 18 L.Ed.2d at 541, the court said:
Juvenile court history has again demonstrated that unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure.
* * * * * *
Departures from established principles of due process have frequently resulted not in enlightened procedure, but in arbitrariness.
This charge should have been handled through a delinquency petition.