Court Opinion

ID: 9778210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:55:40.219049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:04.869174
License: Public Domain

Andree Layton Roaf, Justice, dissenting. In 1989, the Arkansas General Assembly enacted Act 273 of 1989, which became known as the Arkansas Juvenile Code of 1989. A declaration of purpose for this legislation is found at Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-302. It is important in the context of this appeal and warrants our reconsideration: This subchapter shall be liberally construed to the end that its purposes may be carried out: (1) To assure that all juveniles brought to the attention of the courts receive the guidance, care and control, preferably in each juvenile’s oum home, which mil best serve the emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the juvenile and the best interests of the state; (2) To preserve and strengthen the juvenile’s family ties whenever possible, removing him from the custody of his parents only when his welfare or the safety and protection of the public cannot adequately be safeguarded without such removal; and, when the juvenile is removed nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his parents; and to assure, in all cases in which a juvenile must be permanendy removed from the custody of his parents, that the juvenile be placed in an approved family home and be made a member of the family by adoption; (3) To protect society more effectively by substituting for retributive punishment, whenever possible, methods of offender rehabilitation and rehabilitative restitution, recognizing that the application of sanctions which are consistent with the seriousness of the offense is appropriate in all cases; (4) To provide means through which the provisions of this subchapter are executed and enforced and in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights recognized and enforced. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-302 (Repl. 1993) (emphasis added). Since 1991, this court has been called upon numerous times to interpret the provisions of the juvenile code dealing with how we treat youth who are charged with criminal offenses. The General Assembly has in turn had the opportunity on several occasions to react to our holdings. I submit that this court and the General Assembly have so woefully failed to consider a significant portion of the stated purposes underpinning the juvenile code that this language has become meaningless. We have neither liberally construed the statute to the benefit of the emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the juveniles, nor even for the best interests of the state. We have failed to insure that methods of rehabilitation and restitution are substituted wherever possible, for retributive punishment, and we have surely failed to provide that juveniles are assured fair hearings and that their constitutional and other rights provided by this statute are uniformly recognized and enforced. We share this responsibility equally with our elected state representatives. Today, we once again affirm a trial court’s refusal to transfer a criminal case involving a juvenile to juvenile court. The trial court’s ruling, and our affirmance, were foregone conclusions because of the prior holdings of this court, because of the weight of stare decisis, and because of the legislature’s failure to revisit this legislation in light of our holdings. Children between the ages of 14 and 17 years are paying the price for our failures. We cannot even take comfort in the notion that the best interests of the state are being served, for many of these juveniles will return to our midst as adults, and the opportunity to use our best efforts to rehabilitate, guide, and care for them will have been lost. The landmark case which has led us down this path is, of course, Walker v. State, 304 Ark. 393, 803 S.W.2d 502 (1991). In Walker, by a 4-to-3 decision, this court reached several significant holdings which have been repeatedly reavowed and reaffirmed since Walker — that a juvenile movant has the burden of proof when seeking to transfer a case from circuit court to juvenile court — that the trial court need not give equal weight to the three factors that the statute directs it to consider in determining whether to transfer a case — that the prosecutor is not even required to introduce proof on each of the three factors that the trial court is directed to consider — that the criminal information alone can provide a sufficient basis for the denial of a transfer to juvenile court — that a trial court does not have to make findings of fact or provide a rationale for its decision in a juvenile-transfer proceeding. We have also held that juveniles “ultimately” charged and tried in circuit court are subject to the procedures prescribed for adults, and are not afforded the protections provided by the juvenile code, such as the requirement of parental consent to a waiver of right to counsel. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-317; Ring v. State, 320 Ark. 128, 894 S.W.2d 944 (1995); Sims v. State, 320 Ark. 528, 900 S.W.2d 508 (1995). I am not unmindful of the fact that since 1991, the general assembly has twice amended Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318, which deals with waiver and transfer to circuit court, each time to the detriment of juvenile defendants. However, they have not seen fit to amend the stated purposes for the juvenile code. I suggest that they do so at the next opportunity. Until then, our decisions and their inaction are in direct conflict with these purposes. I dissent.