 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Green1/31/2005
tion 20-7-6605(1):
"Child" means a person less than seventeen years of age. "Child" does not mean a person sixteen years of age or older who is charged with a Class A, B, C, or D felony as defined in Section 16-1-20 or a felony which provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of fifteen years or more. However, a person sixteen years of age who is charged with a Class A, B, C, or D felony as defined in Section 16-1-20 or a felony which provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of fifteen years or more may be remanded to the family court for disposition of the charge at the discretion of the solicitor. An additional or accompanying charge associated with the charges contained in this item must be heard by the court with jurisdiction over the offenses contained in this item.
S.C. Code Ann. ยง 20-7-6605(1) (Supp. 2003). In Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966), the United States Supreme Court noted the following criteria for determining whether jurisdiction should be waived under the District of Columbia Juvenile Court Act:
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 (to be determined by consultation with the United States Attorney).
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 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
6. The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile 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.
Id. at 566-67. The South Carolina Supreme Court, in State v. Corey D., 339 S.C. 107, 529 S.E.2d 20 (2000), concluded that the family court may properly consider the Kent factors when determining whether jurisdiction over a juvenile should be transferred. Id. at 117-18, 529 S.E.2d at 25-26 ("Moreover, the family court specifically considered the Kent factors, which in previous cases this Court has implicitly approved as appropriate criteria.").
Facially and legally, jurisdiction of the offenses contained in the amended and re-amended indictment is erroneously placed with the circuit court. The referenced statutes plainly and luculently demonstrate that the exclusive original jurisdiction of the family court controls all charges pending against a juvenile under the age of sixteen. The amalgamation and commingling of pending charges with exclusive original jurisdiction in the family court and exclusive original jurisdiction in the circuit court result in an indictment that can NOT be placed in a legally sufficient position by an am
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|