Court Opinion

ID: 9661788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:49:50.21633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:33.552645
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached, but would point out that it would be far better and safer practice for a district judge to avoid sitting both as the juvenile judge who waives jurisdiction and certifies a juvenile for transfer to the district court to be handled as an adult and also as the district judge who conducts the examining trial at the second stage of the discretionary transfer.
I agree that the statute (Art. 2338-1, § 4, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.) would authorize the district judge to sit as judge of the juvenile court, but the policy and spirit of Art. 2338-1, § 6, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., would be better served if the proceedings, first in the juvenile court and next in the district court, were conducted before different judges.
I am not unmindful that in counties having one district court this may present problems especially where the county judge, who could also sit as juvenile judge, may not be a lawyer. It would not seem to be too difficult, however, to obtain an assignment by an administrative order of another district judge to sit as juvenile judge in the first instance or to conduct the second stage proceedings in the transfer.
In the instant case, appellant complains that the same judge sat as juvenile judge, as district judge, and appointed the grand jury commissioners who selected the grand jury panel from whom the judge chose the grand jury, and that grand jury passed on the third stage of discretionary transfer. He also served as trial j udge.
I concur since the appellant made no objection to the procedure utilized and raises the question for the first time on appeal.