Court Opinion

ID: 9788043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:29:17.09808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:03.634103
License: Public Domain

Chief Judge Fuld (dissenting).
Thoroughly agreeing with the view expressed by the Appellate Division (34 A D 2d 41), I dissent from the decision now being made.
The 15-year-old defendant before us was committed to the New York State Agricultural and Industrial School for a period not to exceed three years. In the light of recent Supreme Court decisions — particularly In re Gault (387 U. S. 1) and In re Winship (397 U. S. 358 [decided March 31, 1970])—I find it difficult to escape the conclusion, first, that a child charged with juvenile delinquency is entitled to a trial by jury if the period for which he may be confined or incarcerated exceeds six months (see Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66) and, second, that his guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. (See In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, supra.) It is quite true that juvenile delinquency proceedings are designed to save the child, rather than to punish him, and that a delinquency adjudication is not a criminal conviction. However, to cull from the court’s opinion in Winship (397 U. S., at pp. 365-366), “ civil labels and good intentions ” may not be relied upon to deprive a child of those procedural protections and safeguards that are guaranteed to an adult.
I would, therefore, affirm the Appellate Division’s order.