THE ADJUDICATION HEARING (PLEAS AND COURT TRIAL)

THE ADJUDICATION HEARING(PLEAS AND COURT TRIAL)
JOHN REEDATTORNEY AT LAWSEABROOK, TEXAS
SOURCES OF JUVENILE LAW
I. U.S. Supreme CourtA.In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)-Fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination-Right to counsel-Confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses-Due process right to notice of charges pendingB.In reWinship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)-Required proof beyond a reasonable doubtC.Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975)-Gave children double jeopardy protectionD.McKeiverv. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971)-A trial by jury is not constitutionally requiredE.Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)-Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty onoffenders whowere under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed
SOURCES OF JUVENILE LAW
F.J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. ____ (2011)-a child’s age properly informs Miranda’s custody analysisG.Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ____ (2012)-mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment
SOURCES OF JUVENILE LAW
II. Title 3 Texas Family CodeA. Jury Trial 54.03(c)-Trial shall be by jury unless jury is waived in accordance with 51.09.-No jury on disposition except for Determinate Sentence cases. 54.04(a)In the Matter of S.G., 304 S.W.3d 518 (Tex.App.- Waco 2009): reversed and remanded because record contained no affirmative waiver of a jury trialV.C.H. v. State, 630 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.App.- Houston [1 Dist.] 1982;In the Matter ofC.D.F., 852 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.App.- Dallas 1993): child and attorney must waive right to jury trial
SOURCES OF JUVENILE LAW
B. Privilege against self-incrimination 54.03(e)C. Extrajudicial statement must be corroborated 54.03(e):R.C.S. v. State, 546 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.Civ.App. – San Antonio 1977)D. Right to Counsel 51.10(b)-child cannot waive counsel-including effective assistance of counselIn re K.J.O., 27 S.W.3d 340 (Tex.App.- Dallas, 2000, rev. denied)
SOURCES OF JUVENILE LAW
E. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 54.03(f)F. Presumed Innocent 54.03(f)
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Double JeopardyA. Jury trial: jeopardy attaches when jury is empaneled and swornIn re C.J.F.183 S.W.3d 841 (Tex.App.-Houston [1stDist.] 2005,no.pet.)B. Court trial: jeopardy attaches when both sides have announced ready and thedefendanthas pled to the charging instrumentState v. Torres, 805 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991)C. Plea Bargain: 54.03(j): If the court accepts the agreement, the courtshallmake a disposition in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the state and the child.In re J.H., No. 04-07-00208-CV (Tex.App. - San Antonio 2007)
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Speedy TrialBarker v.Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)-the length of delay-the reason for thedelay-the child’s assertion of his right to a speedy trialand-theprejudice to the child from the delayJ.W.G., 988 S.W.2d 318 (Tex.App.- Houston [1stDist.] 1999)Graylessv. State, 567 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978)In the Matter of D.M., 611 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.App.- Amarillo 1980)
Admonishments 54.03(b)(1-6)
(1) the allegations(2) possible consequences(3) privilege against self-incriminationIn the Matter of J.G.M., No. 13-13-00704-CV(Tex.App–Corpus Christi, 1/8/15)(4) right to trial and to confrontation of witnessesrighttocounselrightto trial by jury
Mandatory Compliance
In re D.L.E., 531 S.W.2d 196 (Tex.Civ.App. – Eastland 1975)
Judge Must Personally Explain To Respondent
In the Matter of N.S.D., 555 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Civ.App. – El Paso 1977): asking bailiff or secretary not sufficientW.J.M.A. v. State, 602 S.W.2d 397 (Tex.Civ.App. – Beaumont 1980): inquiring of counsel not sufficientIn the Matter of B.J., 960 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 1997): insufficient explanation of nature of the offensesIn the Matter of J.D.P., Jr., 691 S.W.2d 106 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 1985)In the Matter of K.L.C., 990 S.W.2d 242 (Tex. 1999)In the Matter of A.L.S., 915 S.W.2d 114 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 1996)
Judge Must Personally Explain To Respondent
54.03(j) If the court decides not to accept a plea agreement, the court shall give the child an opportunity to withdraw the plea.In the Matter of M.D.G., 180 S.W.3d 747 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2005)In the Matter of J.H., No. 04-07-00208-CV (Tex.App.- San Antonio 2007)In the Matter of E.Q., 839 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.App.- Austin 1992)In the Matter of R.S., No. 01-98-00939-CV (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 1999)
Judge Must Personally Explain To Respondent
54.034 If a plea agreement is followed, child can only appeal if given permission or if it was a matter raised by written pretrial motion.54.04(c): No dispositionIn the Matter of M.A.M., No. 04-97-00795-CV (Tex.App. – San Antonio 1998): no duty to admonish on “no disposition”.54.03(i) Contemporaneous objection required if court fails to properly admonish the child.In the Matter of C.O.S., 988 S.W.2d 760 (Tex. 1999);In the Matter of S.A., No. 06-14-00055-CV (Tex.App. – Texarkana, 12/31/14)
Judge Must Personally Explain To Respondent
Lesser included offenses-The court should admonish on lesser included offenses.A.E.M. v. State, 552 S.W.2d 952 (Tex.Civ.App.- San Antonio 1977, no writ);In the Matter of A.N., 683 S.W.2d 118 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 1984)-But is not required to admonish on every possible lesser included offense.In reD.L.K., 690 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.App.- Eastland 1985, no writ).
Judge Must Personally Explain To Respondent
No duty to admonish on sex offender registration.In re B.G.M., 929 S.W.2d 604 (Tex.App.- Texarkana 1996, no writ).Noduty to admonish on immigration consequences.In re E.J.G.P., 5 S.W.3d 868 (Tex.App.- El Paso 1999, no pet.); but seePadilla v. Kentucky, 130S.Ct. 1473 (2010) andEx parteTanklevskaya, 361 S.W.3d 86, (Houston-1stDist. 2011);Aguilar v. State, No. 14-11-00227-CR (Tex.App. - Houston [14thDist.] 2012);Martinez v. State, No. PD-1338-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012).
THE ADJUDICATION HEARING
54.03(a): A child may be found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision only after an adjudication hearing conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section.What constitutes a hearing?R.E.M. v. State, 569 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Civ.App. – Waco 1978): R filed an answer with a no contest plea and argued double jeopardy at the certification hearingState of Texas v. L.J.B., 561 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1977): Summary Judgment inappropriate
THE ADJUDICATION HEARING
Which Judges Can Preside Over Adjudication Hearings?54.10 An associate judge or referee may preside over adjudication hearings (even jury trials), except in determinate sentencing cases. The referee must, however inform the child that he has a right to a hearing before the juvenile court judge and provide each party an opportunity to object.In re M.A.V., 40 S.W.3d 581 (Tex.App.- San Antonio 2001, no pet.): child can also object to a visiting judge.Can the State object to the associate judge?
THE ADJUDICATION HEARING
Juvenile’s Presence at HearingIn the Matter of C.T.C., 2 S.W.3d 407 (Tex.App.- San Antonio 1999)ParentalParticipation in the Adjudication HearingAdair and Adair v.Kupper, 890 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.App.- Amarillo 1994)
THE ADJUDICATION HEARING
Summons and Service of Summons 53.06, 53.0753.06(a): The juvenile court shall direct issuance of a summons to: (1) the child named in the petition…53.06(b): A copy of the petition must accompany the summons.-provides noticeInthe matter of M.D.R., 113 S.W.3d 552 (Tex.App.- Texarkana 2003);In the Matter of D.W.M., 562 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. 1978)-cases reversed solely on lack of proof of service;In the Matter of X.B., 369 S.W.3d 350 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2012): VOP reversed due to no proof of service in original case.Inthe Matter of D.B., No. 06-14-00053-CV, (Tex.App.- Texarkana 1/28/15): no service on victim in transfer hearing affirmed
THE ADJUDICATION HEARING
53.04(d)(1) The petition must state: (1) with reasonable particularity the time, place, and manner of the acts alleged and the penal law or standard of conduct allegedly violated by the acts…In re T.L.K., 316 S.W. 3d 701 (Tex.App.- Fort Worth 2010)53.07(c): Service of the summons may be made by any suitable person under the direction of the court.In the Matter of A.B., 938 S.W.2d 537 (Tex.App.- Texarkana 1997): service on Respondent’s attorney held not effectiveChandler v. State, 695 S.W.2d 248 (Tex.App.- Austin 1985): service on Respondent by Juvenile Probation Officer held effective
THE COURT TRIAL
Scrutinize PetitionQuintupleHearsayTypoVarianceIn the Matter of J.S.R., No. 07-11-00009-CV (Tex.App. - Amarillo 2011);L.G.R. v. State, 724 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. 1987);In the Matter of B.P.C., No. 03-03-00057-CV (Tex.App. – Austin 2004)
THE COURT TRIAL
Proof of Age51.042 Must object at time of hearingIn re E.D.C., 88 S.W.3d 789 (Tex.App.- El Paso 2002, no pet.)
THE COURT TRIAL
Opening Statement51.17(c) Rules of Evidence Apply in Court TrialsA. 54.03(d)B. CCP 38.23 (the exclusionary rule)C. CCP 38.37D. 54.03(e) accomplice witness testimonyIn re J.R.R., 696 S.W.2d 382 (Tex. 1985);Inthe Matter of D.A.A., No. 13-06-00538-CV (Tex.App. – Corpus Christi 2009);In theMatter of J.A.F.R., 752 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.App. – El Paso 1988);In the Matter of K.B., 143 S.W.3d 194 (Tex.App.- Waco 2004).E. TRE 609(d) Impeachment with prior juvenile adjudicationsF. 54.03(d) Social history report cannot be viewed by the judge before the adjudication decision (except for detention hearings and discretionary transfer hearings)
THE COURT TRIAL
ClosingArgumentA. Permitted argument1. Summation of the evidence2. Reasonable deductions from the evidence3. Answer to argument of opposing counsel, and,4. A plea for law enforcement.Melendez v. State, 194 S.W.3d 641 (Tex.App.- Houston [14thDist.] 2006)
THE COURT TRIAL
B. Prohibited argument1. Comment on Respondent’s failure to testify.Hicks v. State, 815 S.W.2d299 (Tex.App.- Houston [1 Dist.] 1991)2. Striking at the Respondent over the shoulders of his attorney.Gomez v. State, 704S.W.2d770 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985)3. A prosecutor cannot suggest that it render a verdict against a child inorder toremove a child from a bad or dangerous household and not even consider whether the child committed the charged offense.In the Matter of C.L., 930S.W.2d935 (Tex.App.- Houston [14thDist.] 1996, no pet.).
THE COURT TRIAL
C. TimeLimitDangv. State, 154 S.W.3d 616 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) factors:1. The quantity of evidence2. The duration of the trial3. Conflicts in the testimony4. The seriousness of the offense, and5. The complexity of the case.
THE COURT TRIAL
Law of PartiesIn the Matter of L.A.S., 135 S.W.3d 909 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth)Lesser Included Offenses54.03(f):In the Matter of S.D.W., 811 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.App.- Houston [1 Dist.] 1991);In the Matter of A.E.B., 255 S.W.3d 338 (Tex.App.- Dallas 2008)