 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Green7/30/1998
nding enactment, the standard by which juvenile court Judges must adJudge transfers is anything but vague. When a juvenile court Judge decides transfer meets "the needs of the juvenile or [serves] the best interest of the State," N.C.G.S. § 7A-610(a), he or she does so with full knowledge of the Dispositional alternatives in the juvenile and adult systems. The juvenile court Judge seeks to develop a disposition that takes into account the facts of the case, such as the seriousness of the crime, the viciousness of the attack, the injury caused and the strength of the State's case. The juvenile court Judge's decision is also guided by the needs and limitations of the juvenile, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the juvenile's family. Moreover, the juvenile court Judge takes into account the protection of public safety and the legislature's growing concern with serious youthful offenders and increasing dissatisfaction with the ability of the juvenile system to provide either adequate public protection or rehabilitative service to the juvenile given the usual short period of time between conviction and release from the juvenile system. We thus conclude that N.C.G.S. § 7A-610, in light of the entire Juvenile Code, provides sufficient guidance to juvenile court Judges in making transfer decisions and does not on its face violate due process principles embodied in the United States Constitution or the North Carolina Constitution.
Additionally, defendant maintains that section 7A-610 is infirm without the "Kent factors" set forth in the appendix to the Supreme Court's decision in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1966), and urges this Court to adopt the factors as the standard by which juvenile court Judges must make transfer determinations. In Kent, the Supreme Court enunciated a list of factors for the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia to consider in making transfer decisions. The factors on the list consist of the following:
1. The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires waiver.
2. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner.
3. Whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons especially if personal injury resulted.
4. The prosecutive merit of the complaint, i.e., whether there is evidence upon which a Grand Jury may be expected to return an indictment . . . .
5. The desirability of trial and Disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile's associates in the alleged offense are adults who will be charged with a crime .
6. The sophistication and maturity of the uvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living.
7. The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with the Youth Aid Division, other law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation to this Court, or prior commitments to juvenile institutions. 8. The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found to have committed the alleged offense) by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the Juvenile Court.
Kent, 383 U.S. at 566-67, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 100-01.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that the Supreme Court nowhere stated in Kent that the above factors were constitutionally required. In appending this list of factors to its opi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|