Court Opinion

ID: 9549733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:24:14.596509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:51.687520
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm the trial court. The appellant was not charged with a crime. He was adjudged to be within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court by reason of having assaulted and intentionally caused serious bodily injury to another.
Section 55 — 10—105, U.C.A.1953, Replacement Volume 6A reads:
(1) Proceedings in children’s cases shall be regarded as civil proceedings, with the Court exercising equitable powers.
(2) An adjudication by a juvenile court that a child is within its jurisdiction under section 55-10-77 shall not be deemed a conviction of a crime, except in cases involving traffic violations; no such adjudication shall operate to impose any civil disabilities upon the child nor to disqualify the child for any civil service or military service or appointment.
(3) Neither the record in the juvenile court nor any evidence given in the juvenile court shall be admissible as evidence against the child in any proceedings in any other court, with the exception of cases involving traffic violations. [Emphasis added.]
Therefore, the appellant is not convicted of the crime of aggravated assault as claimed in the prevailing opinion. The Juvenile Court found that the appellant comes within the provisions of Section 77 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1965, as amended, by reason of the finding that said child assaulted and intentionally caused serious bodily injury to Kory Jackson.
The result would be the same under Section 77 mentioned above if there had only been a simple assault. The appellant would have been within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court whether he had committed a simple assault or an assault which caused serious bodily injury.1 I, therefore, am unable to see any reason for disturbing the record made by the Juvenile Court in this matter.
As to the remanding of the case for the purpose of having a trial on the cost of the tooth repair, I do not think a trial on that matter is required. In the first place, no complaint is made on appeal in that regard; and in.the second place, the doctor would undoubtedly testify the same as he informed the judge while counsel were with the judge at the time of the call.
There is another reason which leads me to believe that further evidence need not be taken. Section 55-10-100(7), U.C.A.1953, as amended in Replacement Volume 6A provides:
(7) The court may order that the child be required to repair or replace or to otherwise make restitution for damages or loss caused by his wrongful act,

It appears that the amount of restitution ordered by the Court was only for the cost of repairing the tooth. However, the total harm done was greatly in excess of the dental bill — there was the pain and suffering which the victim endured as well as having to go through life with a repaired broken tooth.
I, therefore, would simply affirm the judgment rendered by the Juvenile Court.
CROCKETT, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of ELLETT, C. J.

. A front tooth is a member of the body and the breaking of it is mayhem (a felony). See Keith v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.App. 264, 232 S.W. 321; 16 A.L.R. 949; High v. State, 26 Tex.App. 545, 10 S.W. 238; 4 Blackstone Com. 205. Annotation in 16 A.L.R. 969g. The breaking of a front tooth consists of a more serious offense than a simple assault.