36 results for 'cat:"Juvenile Law" AND cat:"Sex Offender"'.
J. May finds that defendant was improperly convicted of child molesting. The juvenile court lost jurisdiction over defendant and his criminal actions when he turned 21, and the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to try him for conduct that occurred when he was a minor. The gap in jurisdiction has been addressed in a new law, but fairness precludes retroactive application to defendant. Reversed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: May, Filed On: May 10, 2024, Case #: 23A-CR-330, Categories: juvenile Law, sex Offender, Jurisdiction
J. Riedmann finds the district court properly denied defendant's motion to transfer his case to the juvenile court. Sufficient evidence supports allegations against the 16-year-old involving his sexual abuse of children, including one younger than 1 year old. Defendant's prior involvement with the juvenile court system, the allegations being made within three months of his return home, the severity of the allegations and the public’s need for protection makes retention in the district court proper. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Riedmann , Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: A-23-880, Categories: juvenile Law, sex Offender, Jurisdiction
J. Petrou finds that the juvenile court properly denied a motion to seal juvenile records. The dismissal of juvenile court petitions after the juvenile's wardship ended did not obligate the juvenile court to seal his records since the underlying adjudications for forcible lewd conduct are ineligible for sealing under statute. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Petrou, Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: A168282, Categories: juvenile Law, sex Offender
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Gabriel finds that Colorado's sex offender sentencing scheme allows parole boards to consider a juvenile defendant's maturity, although the statutory language does not require such consideration. The term "progress through treatment" does not necessarily include such a defendant's maturation process, which involves a number of factors that must be applied on a case-by-case basis. However, because "progress through treatment" includes sex offender programs that are, by definition, rehabilitative, parole boards must consider rehabilitation as part of their ultimate decisions regarding juvenile sex offenders.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 2024CO14, Categories: juvenile Law, Parole, sex Offender
J. Chutich affirms the Court of Appeals and the district court in the juvenile delinquency defendant's appeal arguing that the state cannot file more than one notice of intention to prosecute in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The state can file multiple such notices, and thereby extend a suspension of gross misdemeanor proceedings until a child found to be incompetent is restored to competency or ages out of juvenile jurisdiction, or until the state fails to file a timely notice. The Juvenile Rules Advisory Committee is also directed to propose amendments to the relevant rule that will "promote clear, consistent practice and procedures in these juvenile cases." Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Chutich, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: A22-0654, Categories: Criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, sex Offender
Per curiam, the Appeals Court finds the juvenile court properly determined that a youth adjudicated delinquent who engaged in conduct that would constitute attempted first-degree sexual abuse and first-degree sodomy if committed by an adult must register as a sex offender. “The question of rehabilitation necessarily requires a present assessment, but the statute allows consideration of a variety of factors.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: A178766, Categories: juvenile Law, sex Offender
J. Todd finds that the lower court properly dismissed this case concerning defendant’s sentencing for sodomizing another child when he was 15 years old. Although the juvenile court previously denied defendant his right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination by considering his refusal to admit guilt for the criminal offenses, defendant is not entitled to a new juvenile certification hearing because he is now 27 years old and outside of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Affirmed.
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Judge: Todd, Filed On: January 30, 2024, Case #: J-83-2022, Categories: juvenile Law, Sentencing, sex Offender
J. Reyes affirms the district court's adjudication of the minor as delinquent of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct following his breach of a continuance for dismissal agreement. District courts retain subject-matter jurisdiction over adult defendants' termination hearings for continuances for dismissal until a defendant's 21st birthday under an exception to Minnesota's juvenile-jurisdiction statute permitting them to conduct a trial. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Judge: Reyes, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: A23-0752, Categories: juvenile Law, sex Offender
J. McEvers dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction in a matter in which the state appealed the transfer of a matter to juvenile court. The juvenile was charged with six counts of gross sexual imposition. The matter was properly transferred following an update to the definition of "child" under North Dakota House Bill 1160.
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court, Judge: McEvers, Filed On: January 10, 2024, Case #: 2024ND1, Categories: juvenile Law, sex Offender
J. Mansfield finds that the juvenile court could not "reclaim jurisdiction" after waiving a case for the district court to prosecute defendant, a 17-year-old, for sexual exploitation of a minor and possession of child pornography. The juvenile court had no legal authority to attempt to regain control of the case after waiving such for the purpose of having defendant tried as an adult.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court, Judge: Mansfield, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: 22-0326, Categories: Criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, sex Offender
J. Gratton finds that the juvenile defendant's 15-year sentence with 11 years determinate for attempted rape was supported by substantial evidence. His violent, unprovoked and opportunistic crime combined with a presentence investigation report, a psychosexual evaluation, and documents from multiple other psychiatric evaluations show that he presents an extraordinarily high risk of reoffending. Affirmed.
Court: Idaho Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gratton, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: 49994, Categories: juvenile Law, Sentencing, sex Offender
J. Gustafson holds that the Youth Court exceeded its authority by imposing additional terms to a juvenile's original disposition when he turned 18. A Youth Court may not modify an existing disposition, issue a new disposition or impose additional conditions, such as sexual offender registration and an added term of commitment, without pleadings and proving that the original disposition was violated. Reversed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: Gustafson, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: DA 22-0089, Categories: juvenile Law, sex Offender, Due Process
Per curiam, the Texas Supreme Court finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled against defendant, a minor, charged with aggravated sexual assault. After the court of appeals ruled that defendant could not be charged with aggravated sexual assault because he was under the age of 14 and therefore could not consent to sex, the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that minors are capable of committing aggravated sexual assault. The state filed a motion for rehearing with the appeals court on its charges against defendant but was denied. The state then filed for a petition of review. Consent is not relevant to determine whether defendant intentionally committed aggravated sexual assault. Moreover, the age of the accused is immaterial, because state laws prohibiting sexual assault do not distinguish between acts committed by children and adults. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 22-0388, Categories: sex Offender, juvenile Law
J. McKinnon finds that the district court failed to consider the 17-year-old defendant's youthfulness, impulsiveness and low risk of reoffending before denying his motion to transfer his sexual assault case to youth court. It relied only on the seriousness of the offense without consideration of the nature of the offense, which is required by statute. Reversed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: McKinnon, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: DA 21-0618, Categories: juvenile Law, sex Offender
J. Lazarus finds that the lower court properly sentenced defendant for forcibly raping two women, one at gunpoint and one who was 71-years-old and unable to resist the attack. The court did not sentence him as a juvenile because the conditions under which the rapes took place disqualify them from being considered as juvenile delinquencies. Affirmed.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Lazarus, Filed On: July 12, 2023, Case #: J-S17005-23, Categories: juvenile Law, Sentencing, sex Offender
J. Tookey finds the juvenile court properly found a juvenile guilty for acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute first-degree rape and second-degree sexual abuse. “A rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of first-degree rape beyond a reasonable doubt.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Tookey, Filed On: July 6, 2023, Case #: A176952, Categories: juvenile Law, sex Offender
J. Bishop finds the county court properly denied the 17-year-old defendant's motion to transfer his sexual assault case to the juvenile court. The arrest warrant affidavit explains that defendant sexually penetrated his 10-year-old sister while she was sleeping. All testimony and evidence, including forensic examination and interviews, support trial in adult court. Properly weighing all relevant factors, including defendant's lack of criminal history and the age of the victim, the court found it to be in defendant's best interest to be rehabilitated, which could not be accomplished in the limited time left under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bishop , Filed On: July 3, 2023, Case #: A-23-204, Categories: juvenile Law, sex Offender, Child Victims