37 results for 'cat:"Juvenile Law" AND cat:"Murder"'.
J. Wood finds the county juvenile division properly granted the state’s motion for extended juvenile jurisdiction. Responding to a 911 call, officers discovered the 14-year-old defendant and his 10-year-old brother standing outside the residence with his mother and another 16-year-old brother lying inside with multiple stab wounds. An agreed not-fit-to-proceed commitment order was entered upon a medical diagnosis of defendant as having several disorders, including ADHD, other impairments and an IQ of 76. The state’s motion was not clearly erroneous. The court properly considered each factor, making written findings supported by the evidence. Defendant's argument involving his claims the murder was accidental asks the appeals court to reweigh evidence. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Wood , Filed On: May 15, 2024, Case #: CR-23-655, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Commitment
J. Stewart finds that the appeals court erroneously determined the trial court lacked jurisdiction over defendant's murder case. Although the juvenile court did not find probable cause to bind over the murder charge to adult court, the complicity to commit murder charge, which was properly bound over, was based on the same set of facts and gave the adult court jurisdiction over all the charges. Additionally, the appeals court erroneously suppressed statements made by defendant to police without an attorney because the interview took place before any criminal proceedings and before the right to counsel attached; furthermore, defendant waived his right to counsel after being read his Miranda rights. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Stewart, Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1752, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Jurisdiction
Per curiam, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts determines that, where the defendant is a juvenile with executive functioning issues and learning disabilities that make it difficult if not impossible for him to understand court procedure without specialized instruction, “the ability to propose, finance, order, and compel remediation programming falls beyond the purview of the court.” Discharged and remanded.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: SJC-13466, Categories: Competence, juvenile Law, murder
J. Fischer finds defendant's constitutional rights were not violated when the adult trial court added a tampering with evidence charge not considered by the juvenile trial court. The charge stemmed from the same actions that formed the basis of the original criminal complaint for murder and assault. Ohio law specifically allows adult courts to consider charges not bound over by a juvenile court, and because evidence presented during defendant's bind-over hearing established he sold the stolen gun used in the shooting to avoid prosecution, the tampering charge was properly added to the eventual indictment. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Fischer, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1433, Categories: Constitution, juvenile Law, murder
J. Pickering finds the juvenile court improperly certified the juvenile for murder and robbery proceedings as an adult. The 14-year-old, with an IQ of 66, was originally found incompetent, followed by competency-restoration before he was eventually declared competent. The juvenile court did not address conflicting expert testimony as to the juvenile's understanding of the proceedings and ability to assist counsel. The court applied juvenile-court-specific competency standards, emphasizing there is no right to a jury trial in juvenile delinquency adjudication. Vacated.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Pickering , Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 84563, Categories: Competence, juvenile Law, murder
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. Webb finds the circuit court properly denied defendant's pro se writ of habeas corpus, in which he argues his life sentence, imposed when he was convicted of capital murder at 19 years old, is cruel and unusual punishment. Though he says certain case law should be applied in an individualized manner, arguing there is no neurotypical distinction between a juvenile teenager and nonjuvenile teenager, the sentence is not illegal on its face. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Webb , Filed On: April 11, 2024, Case #: CV-23-552, Categories: Constitution, juvenile Law, murder
J. Tabor finds that a minimum mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole in 50 years was properly imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, which he committed at age 17, as the lower court performed a thorough analysis before handing down sentence. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Tabor, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 22-2079, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Sentencing
[Modified.] J. Menetrez removes the name of a probation officer with no change in judgment. The juvenile court properly ordered that defendant, a juvenile, be transferred to criminal court to face a murder charge. Recent statutory changes raising the standard of proof for a transfer to clear and convincing did not give greater weight to any one of several factors, such as welfare or foster care history, human trafficking or sexual battery. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Menetrez, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: E082250, Categories: juvenile Law, murder
J. Menetrez finds that the juvenile court properly ordered that defendant, a juvenile, be transferred to criminal court to face a murder charge. Recent statutory changes raising the standard of proof for a transfer to clear and convincing did not give greater weight to any one of several factors, such as welfare or foster care history, human trafficking or sexual battery. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Menetrez, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: E082250, Categories: juvenile Law, murder
J. Shanker vacates the trial court's refusal to grant defendant, who was convicted of first-degree murder and other offenses when he was 19 and sentenced to life imprisonment, early release under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act. The trial court improperly considered the degree to which the "'hallmark features of youth'" played a role in the crime. Vacated.
Court: DC Court of Appeals, Judge: Shanker, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 22-CO-0650 , Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Sentencing
J. Gallagher finds the juvenile court properly transferred defendant's case to adult court. Although he was only 14 at the time he committed the murders, he had already failed to respond to counseling and interventions, had a violent criminal history and was the principal offender of the crime at issue, which involved shooting two victims in the back without any provocation. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gallagher, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-729, Categories: Criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, murder
J. Gallagher finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to separate his assault and murder charges into two trials. The evidence for each of the sets of charges was simple and direct, while the crimes also occurred on separate dates at separate locations, which prevented any chance of confusion by the jury. However, the trial court erroneously failed to consider defendant's age of 17 at the time he committed the offenses, and so defendant's sentence of life in prison with parole eligibility after 63 years will be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. Affirmed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gallagher, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-467, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Sentencing
J. Klappenbach finds the county court properly denied defendant's motion to transfer his charges for first-degree murder and committing a terroristic act to the juvenile division. The victim, who it was believed by the 16-year-old defendant to have shot his codefendant a year earlier, was found with a gunshot wound to the back of his head. Statements made to officers tended to point toward defendant, who claims gang affiliation, as the shooter. Regardless of defendant's arguments, a juvenile may still be tried as an adult solely because of the serious and violent nature of the offenses. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Klappenbach , Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: CR-23-232, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Terrorism
J. Streeter holds that the juvenile court had jurisdiction to modify a juvenile's commitment for attempted murder to a maximum term of confinement of 22-years-to-life. The juvenile court met the requirements for good cause and was making a diligent effort to comply with a new statute. Also, the juvenile's equal protection rights were not violated by the juvenile court's refusal to apply his precommitment credits to his baseline term. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: A166408, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Sentencing
J. Yun finds the black juvenile defendants were not victims of selective prosecution when the state agreed to remand two white codefendants' cases to juvenile court. Although all four defendants were charged with the same crimes initially, the white defendants' cooperation with the prosecution allowed for different treatment of their cases. It was also undisputed one of the black defendants was the individual who shot and killed the victim during the robbery, which separated him from the remaining defendants, and when combined with their lack of cooperation, this was sufficient to allow the black defendants' cases to remain in adult court. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Yun, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 2024COA7, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Civil Rights
J. Budd reverses a sentence of life without parole for a defendant convicted of murder. The defendant was 18 when he committed the crime and 18-to-20-year-olds — emerging adults — are more neurologically similar to 17-year-olds than to people age 22 and older. So even though an 18-year-old is an adult, a statute determining that sentencing juveniles to life without parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment also applies to emerging adults. Vacated.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Budd, Filed On: January 11, 2024, Case #: SJC-11693, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Sentencing
J. Crouse finds the juvenile court erroneously determined defendant caused the fight with the victim when she left her home with a knife. At the time she left her home, she had no intention of fighting and only did so when she was attacked by the victim and a group of her family members. However, the adjudication of the juvenile defendant as delinquent for assault and murder charges was not against the weight of the evidence because defendant's self-defense claim failed, given that she used the knife immediately upon being confronted by the victim, who was unarmed. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Crouse, Filed On: December 29, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4816, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Self Defense
J. Pirtle finds the lower court properly denied the 15-year-old defendant's motion to waive jurisdiction to the juvenile court. Defendant was charged with attempted murder, assault and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony for stabbing the 15-year-old victim. Although defendant has no criminal history, factors weigh in favor of the lower court's retention, including defendant's stated desire to kill people, his choice of a random victim and his statement that stabbing him "kind of felt nice." Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Pirtle , Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: A-23-581, Categories: Evidence, juvenile Law, murder
J. Liu finds the trial court improperly convicted defendant for a gang-related murder. Retroactive application of a recent bill narrowing the definition of "street gang" to the gang-murder special circumstance does not violate limitation on legislative amendment in the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act, and the prosecution concedes the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the gang enhancement in this case. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu , Filed On: December 18, 2023, Case #: S275835, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Gangs
J. Tenney finds that ample evidence supported the conclusion that a minor caused the injuries and subsequent death of an infant in his care. The infant died from a violent brain injury that would have been apparent very quickly and the minor was the only person alone with the infant just before the symptoms appeared. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Tenney, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 20210291-CA, Categories: Evidence, juvenile Law, murder
J. Gallagher finds the juvenile court erroneously denied the state's request for mandatory bind-over of defendant's case to the common pleas court. Defendant admitted he purchased marijuana from the shooting victim and was seen on surveillance footage getting into the vehicle seen leaving the scene of the crime; therefore, the state provided credible evidence to support each element of the crimes and the case should have been transferred. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gallagher, Filed On: November 2, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3975, Categories: juvenile Law, murder
J. Cassel finds the district court properly dismissed this suit brought by the prison inmate regarding the computation of her tentative mandatory release date. The court sentenced defendant to life for a murder committed as a juvenile, imposing a consecutive sentence of two to five years for a firearm use conviction. Later, the court imposed a consecutive sentence of one year for assault by a confined person. The murder sentence was vacated following a decision involving juvenile offenders and changed to 60 to 80 years. The inmate’s complaint, challenging confinement duration, fails to state a claim. Also, in failing to challenge the validity of a rule, the sovereign immunity waiver does not apply. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court, Judge: Cassel, Filed On: October 27, 2023, Case #: S-22-719, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Sentencing
J. Salter finds that the circuit court properly entered judgment after defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Defendant sought review of multiple issues that arose from jury selection and sentencing. The circuit court ultimately held that statements made by a prosecutor should be clarified to reflect the fact that the State requested the transfer of the juvenile case to adult court, which the prosecutor agreed to explain. Affirmed.
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court, Judge: Salter, Filed On: October 4, 2023, Case #: 2023SD53, Categories: juvenile Law, Jury, murder
J. Smith finds that the trial court properly sentenced defendant to two consecutive life sentences for two murders he committed as a juvenile. Defendant is eligible for parole after 25 years, which constitutes a "meaningful opportunity" to be considered for release during his natural life. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Smith, Filed On: September 15, 2023, Case #: 2D22-866, Categories: juvenile Law, murder, Sentencing