Court Opinion

ID: 9669490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:57:18.872929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:57.219605
License: Public Domain

HEFFERNAN, CHIEF JUSTICE
(dissenting). LeQue was wrongly decided by the court of appeals.1 The adult court has no jurisdiction over a person concerning a crime committed at an age at which the person could not have been waived into adult court. Accordingly, I dissent.
Section 753.03, Stats., provides that the circuit court has jurisdiction over "all civil and criminal actions and proceedings unless exclusive jurisdiction is given to some other court." The jurisdiction of the juvenile branch of the circuit court is set forth in sec. 48.12(1), Stats.: "The court has exclusive jurisdiction, except as provided in ss. 48.17 and 48.18, over any child 12 years *476of age or older who is alleged to be delinquent as defined in s. 48.02(3m)."
The majority concludes that because sec. 48.18(1), Stats., defines the juvenile court's jurisdiction according to the age of the person, its exclusivity ends when the person turns eighteen, regardless of the date of the offense. However, when read as it must be in conjunction with secs. 48.12(2) and 48.18(1), Stats., the exclusivity of the juvenile court's jurisdiction embraces all acts committed at an age when the person cannot be waived into adult court. When such person becomes eighteen and no action has been initiated in the juvenile court, no court has jurisdiction over the offense.
Section 48.12, Stats., provides in its entirety:
(1) The court has exclusive jurisdiction, except as provided in ss. 48.17 and 48.18, over any child 12 years of age or older who is alleged to be delinquent as defined in s. 48.02 (3m).
(2) If a court proceeding has been commenced under this section before a child is 18 years of age, but the child becomes 18 years of age before admitting the facts of the petition at the plea hearing or if the child denies the facts, before an adjudication, the court retains jurisdiction over the case to dismiss the action with prejudice, to waive its jurisdiction under s. 48.18, or to enter into a consent decree. If the court finds that the child has failed to fulfill the express terms and conditions of the consent decree or the child objects to the continuation of the consent decree, the court may waive its jurisdiction.
Section 48.18(1), Stats., provides in part:
If a child is alleged to have violated s. 940.01 or 940.02 [first-degree intentional and reckless homicide] on or after his or her 14th birthday or if a child *477is alleged to have violated any state criminal law on or after his or her 16th birthday, the child or district attorney may apply to the court to waive its jurisdiction under this chapter.
Annala committed the sexual assaults in question when he was fifteen years old. Clearly, if Annala's prosecution had been commenced when he was sixteen or seventeen, and he turned eighteen before admitting the facts or before an adjudication, the juvenile court would have been limited under sec. 48.12(2), Stats., either to dismiss the action with prejudice or enter into a consent decree (which is unlikely).2 Waiver is not an option. Because waiver is not available, under sec. 48.12(1), Stats., the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over the action, not merely over the child.
This result cannot be said to be caused by double jeopardy concerns, because waiver is proper as allowed by sec. 48.18(1), Stats. If the jurisdiction of the juvenile and adult courts were as clearly delineated as the majority contends, sec. 48.12(2), Stats., would be unnecessary. The juvenile court would simply lose its jurisdiction and the action would transfer to the adult court.3
*478What this reveals is that the legislature has determined that children who violate criminal laws prior to their sixteenth birthday (or fourteenth for first-degree homicide) should not be held criminally accountable as adults. That is, a child such as Annala should not be held accountable as an adult, and face a lengthy prison sentence at worst and a felony conviction at best, for actions taken at the age of fifteen. One express purpose of the Children's Code is: "Consistent with the protection of the public interest, to remove from children committing delinquent acts the consequences of criminal behavior and to substitute therefor a program of supervision, care and rehabilitation." Section 48.01 (l)(c), Stats. There is no other way to interpret secs. 48.12(2) and 48.18(1), than to conclude that persons committing crimes at an early age are not punishable in the adult criminal courts.
The legislative history of secs. 48.18(1) and 48.12(2), Stats., supports this conclusion. Prior to 1977, sec. 48.18, allowed the juvenile court to waive its jurisdiction over any child over the age of sixteen, regardless of the age at which the offense was committed. See, e.g., sec. 48.18, Stats. 1975. Also at that time, sec. 48.12(2), Stats., did not exist. Accordingly, decisions of this court through 1977 — the decisions relied upon by the majority — concluded that the date of charging, and not the date of the offense, was determinative of jurisdiction. See State ex rel. Koopman v. Waukesha County Court Judges, 38 Wis. 2d 492, 499, 157 N.W.2d 623 (1968); State v. Becker, 74 Wis. 2d 675, 678, 247 N.W.2d 495 (1976); and State v. Avery, 80 Wis. 2d 305, 310, 259 N.W.2d 63 (1977). Because of the subsequent revision of *479sec. 48.18(1), and the creation of sec. 48.12(2), these cases are irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue here.
In 1977, the legislature repealed and recreated sec. 48.18, Stats. Section 31, ch. 354, Laws of 1977. The recreated statute greatly expanded and explained the waiver procedure, and specifically tied the ability to waive jurisdiction to the age of the child at the time of the act. Section 48.18(1), Stats. 1977, provided in part: "If a child is alleged to have violated a state criminal law on or after his or her 16th birthday, the child or district attorney may apply to the court to waive its jurisdiction under this chapter."4 Implicit in this change is the legislative determination that criminal culpability in an adult court is improper for actions taken at the age of fifteen or younger.
In 1979, the legislature created sec. 48.12(2), Stats., circumscribing the juvenile court's options when a child turns eighteen during juvenile court proceedings. Chapter 300, Laws of 1979. The court's options where the act occurred prior to the child's sixteenth birthday are to either dismiss the action with prejudice or enter into a consent decree. This subsection is completely consistent with the conclusion that the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal acts committed by children *480before their sixteenth birthday. Once the child turns eighteen, no court has jurisdiction over the alleged offense.5
The majority's conclusion in this case seems to proceed from a draconian retributive view of criminal law. That is, where there is a crime, there must be a punishment. The majority rather bleakly asserts: "Children committing delinquent acts remain culpable for their criminal behavior." Majority op. at 468-469. Completely missing from the majority's analysis is any consideration *481of the legislature's declaration of the relative culpability of a fifteen-year-old and an eighteen-year-old. For example, in rejecting Annala's argument that secs. 48.12(2) and 48.18(1), Stats., read together, indicate that the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction based upon the age of the child at the time of the offense, the majority states:
[T]he practical effect of Annala's contention would be to lower the statute of limitations under sec. 939.74(1), Stats., for felony crimes from six years to something less than six years where the defendant was between the ages of twelve and sixteen years old at the time of the alleged criminal conduct. We do not think that the legislature intended to allow a minor who is less than sixteen years old who commits a serious felony to cajole or manipulate the victim or conceal the crime or conceal suspected culpability for the crime until reaching eighteen years of age and thereby conclusively frustrating the State's ability to hold him or her accountable for the wrongdoing.
Majority op. at 465-466. While I must first state that I do not share the majority's caustic cynicism regarding the diabolical nature of fifteen-year-old delinquents, I hasten to add that there is absolutely no evidence in this record that Annala "cajoled" or "manipulated" the victim or her family or attempted to conceal the crime at any time. Quite the contrary. Annala admitted his culpability and accepted the treatment agreed upon by his parents and the victim's mother. He successfully completed the treatment and has had no further problems with the law.6 As the trial court noted:
*482[B]y a curious irony here, and I, I think probably because Mr. Annala was willing to acknowledge his culpability, was willing to submit to treatment and, and did respond favorably to that treatment, there was no incentive for any of the parties that were involved to take any action that would have triggered the juvenile court system getting involved.
Had Mr. Annala refused to acknowledge his culpability, or had he refused to submit to treatment, or had he not responded favorably to that treatment, I expect that very probably what would have happened would have been the juvenile court system would have gotten involved at that point, Mr. Annala would have been handled as a juvenile offender, and this action then clearly would have been barred. It is because Mr. — because of Mr. Annala's admission of guilt and because of the — what I consider to be responsible action on his part of getting treatment and, and responding to that treatment that he is in the position that he is in now, which is a, an unusual and nearly unique situation under our criminal justice system, where someone who committed an offense below the age of waiver in juvenile court can be tried and convicted as an adult offender.
Certainly this is not a case where a delinquent youth intentionally frustrated the state's ability to hold him accountable.7
*483Additionally, I do not find repugnant that the statute of limitations for criminal acts committed by young children is in effect reduced from six years to something between six and two years, depending upon the age of the child at the time of the offense. In fact, it is by legislative and by any humane determinant laudable. The legislature has determined that the state will not hold individuals criminally accountable as adults for acts taken before the age of sixteen. The 1977 revisions to ch. 48, appropriately read, demonstrate that society's interest in punishing aberrant behavior as criminal behavior only begins when a child turns sixteen. Prior to that time, with the exception of first degree homicide, the legislature has determined that a child will only be held accountable as a child for his or her acts.
I agree with the majority that the rehabilitative needs of victims are an important concern in deciding whether to prosecute; however, I do not think such concerns mandate adult criminal liability for the acts of young children, where the legislature has expressed a contrary intent. I conclude that the adult circuit court has no jurisdiction over the conduct of a person at an age when waiver into adult court is impossible.
The problem with the majority's opinion is that it postulates a case that is not the one at issue nor is it consistent with the facts here. I repeat that the parent of the child who was the subject of Annala's delinquent misconduct confronted Annala and his parents shortly after the incident and, together with the full acquies*484cence of all concerned, it was determined that Annala submit to a course of therapy which by all reliable evidence was extremely successful. What was done here is what is hoped to be accomplished by treatment of the delinquent child in successful juvenile court programs. Had this been done under the supervision of a juvenile court, the author of the majority would be touting its efficacy. But because it was accomplished by concerned parents, with the help of trained professionals, with the acknowledgment of guilt by the delinquent, the majority appears to be thwarted of its desire for societal vengeance merely because private resources were used and not the taxpayer-supported resources of the court.
Remedial therapy and social improvement are not the sole province of the judicial system, and it is symptomatic of governmental arrogance to assert that only the courts can do justice or act in such a manner that a victim's desire for vindication can be assuaged. As the author of the majority was for years a trial judge concerned with problems of young persons, and a good judge, too, his predilection for formalized court proceedings is understandable. But the majority for which he writes is oblivious to the fact that it is simply unjust from any standpoint to now prosecute under the circumstances where Annala has confessed, demonstrated contrition, and there was as complete a turnaround in his conduct as any court-supervised program could have accomplished. Moreover, to say that adult criminal punishment is all that will assure justice and assuage the victim's hurt is a slur upon the efficacy of all juvenile court rehabilitative programs and a slur upon the legislatively adopted policy that treatment of the type afforded under the supervision of the juvenile courts is in the public interest. How then can this successful treatment of Annala not be in the public interest except when *485viewed by those who exalt the procedures of the courts over the substance of confession, contrition, treatment and reformation.
And, of course, the assertion of jurisdiction by the majority is thin soup indeed. Their basic argument is simply that the fundamental principle of law is invariably retribution, but only as meted out in a court. Hence, any rationale which demonstrates that court procedures are not available is ipso facto wrong because that result thwarts the coveted procedure. The majority's ipse dixit is simply that a conclusion that there is no jurisdiction cannot be right. The fundamental point, however, is that Annala has responded appropriately by facing up to the problems created by his opprobrious conduct toward a child, and as a child with the approval of his parents and the other child's parent, he accepted his guilt with the responsibility of an adult. Rational and enlightened justice should, in the circumstances of this case, abhor the Shylockian retribution which the majority deems appropriate. I dissent.

 The majority's assertion that sec. 48.12(2), Stats., provides an incentive to file cases in the juvenile court is nonsensical — State v. Becker, 74 Wis. 2d 675, 247 N.W.2d 495 (1976) *478clearly holds that the state may not delay charging a child in order to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction. No extra "incentive" is necessary.

 1987 Wis. Act 27 amended sec. 48.18(1) to allow waiver of jurisdiction for first-degree intentional and reckless homicide committed on or after a child's fourteenth birthday. The fact that the legislature has chosen to treat first-degree intentional and reckless homicide differently, and allow waiver into adult court for such offenses when committed after the child's fourteenth birthday, is not, as the majority asserts, a "glaring inconsistency" in any sense. It represents a legislative determination that adult criminal culpability may attach at an earlier age to first-degree intentional and reckless homicide than it will to other criminal acts.

 Apparently the majority would ignore this legislative history because it concludes that the language of the statute is unambiguous. It is of course enough to state that I conclude that sec. 48.12, Stats., read as whole is ambiguous regarding the nature of the juvenile court's exclusive jurisdiction because sec. 48.12(2) requires the juvenile court to dismiss "the action," not the child, with prejudice when the act was committed prior to the waiver age and the defendant declines to enter into a consent decree. But more importantly it should be noted that the primary purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the legislature's intent, and that this court has recognized exceptions to the plain meaning rule — both when persuasive legislative history indicates a contrary legislative intent, Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board v. Hervey, 113 Wis. 2d 634, 641 n. 9, 335 N.W.2d 607 (1983), quoting United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562 (1940), and when an "absurd or unreasonable result" would be effected by merely applying the plain meaning rule. Rice v. Ashland County, 108 Wis. 189, 192, 84 N.W. 189 (1900). The creation of sec. 48.12(2), Stats., and the revision of sec. 48.18(1), Stats., indicate a legislative determination that adult criminal culpability does not attach to acts taken at age when waiver into adult court is impossible, and consistent with the primary purpose of statutory construction — to ascertain the legislature's intent — and with the rule of lenity that ambiguity in penal statutes should be interpreted in a defendant's favor, State v. Wilson, 77 Wis. 2d 15, 28, 252 N.W.2d 64 (1977), I cannot ignore that legislative history.

 Unrelated to the facts of this case, where the act was openly acknowledged by Annala, the majority opinion raises the specter of the victim's family intentionally failing to inform the authorities of a juvenile offense until the perpetrator turns eighteen. *482Similar to the deliberate official delay banned in Becker, 74 Wis. 2d at 678, individuals should not be subject to the manipulation of the juvenile system by private individuals. And while there is no evidence of any manipulation by the victim's family in this case, the facts in LeQue, 150 Wis. 2d 258-60, indicate that it is certainly a possibility.

 The other issue raised in the order for additional briefing is whether the fact that Annala received treatment similar to that prescribed in the Children's Code distinguishes this case from LeQue. The majority concludes that this presents merely a con*483sideration for the sentencing court. While this is certainly true, a prosecutor should give strong consideration to such treatment when determining whether to charge an adult with a crime committed as a young child. Of course, if the majority did not reach its bizarre conclusion, this additional burden on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion would be obviated.