Juvenile Court is Different

It is vital to seek the help of an attorney that has experience specifically in juvenile court because it’s a different world. In juvenile court the terminology is different, the procedures are different and even the law can be different. Many defense attorneys practice mostly in adult criminal courts and will from time to time take juvenile cases. These defense attorneys often don’t know about the intricacies of juvenile court that could potentially benefit their client’s case.

Traditional criminal defense attorneys who do not have a focus on juvenile court would not know that “status offenses” like truancy and curfew violation are considered criminal acts when committed by juveniles. The first sign of an attorney who is not dedicated to juvenile criminal court cases is an attorney who refers to cases as “convictions” instead of “adjudications.” Technically, juvenile court is not part of the California criminal law system. It is part of the civil law system where cases are adjudicated. There are also no juries in juvenile court, and the proceedings are generally kept confidential.

There are also a number of different “dispositions” – also known as sentences – in juvenile court that wouldn’t necessarily be available in adult criminal proceedings. Informal probation is certainly an option, however in juvenile court the minor never admits any allegation of wrongdoing and the charges are dismissed upon successful completion of the program. Juvenile offenders are also not “incarcerated” in state prison; they are “committed” to the California Youth Authority (CYA) which is also called the Division of Juvenile Justice under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations.

Juvenile offenders are committed to CYA instead of incarcerated because the goal of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate offenders. It is well known that the adult criminal justice system is designed to punish, deter, and incapacitate – rarely is rehabilitation a goal. Juvenile offenders will often get the education, treatment and services necessary to move past their crimes, reunite with their families and become productive members of society.

Although most minors under the age of 18 at the time of the offense will be tried in the juvenile justice system, there are cases in which younger minors can be tried in the adult court system. The age at the time of offense is critical, this means that if the offense was committed when the offender was 17 but is not caught until age 20, the case can still be heard in the juvenile justice system.

However, certain crimes committed while the minor is 14 and up must be heard in the adult court system. These are typically very serious crimes such as murder with special circumstances, sex offenses such as rape with force, violence or threat of bodily harm, forcible sex in concert with another, lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 with force, violence or threat of great bodily injury, forcible sexual penetration, sodomy or oral copulation by force, violence or threat of great bodily injury.

In certain circumstances, minors can be tried as an adult. Those circumstances are crimes such as murder, arson causing great bodily injury, robbery, certain sex crimes, kidnapping for ransom, robbery or with great bodily harm, attempted murder, assault with a firearm, and other such serious offenses. Prosecutors have the discretion as to how to handle cases that can be filed in adult court. They can either file directly in adult court or can initiate a fitness hearing and have a judge decide the issue.

These are just of few of the intricacies involved in juvenile criminal defense. It is important to have an attorney who is dedicated to understanding fully the juvenile justice system, especially where there is the necessity of a fitness hearing. The best outcomes can happen in juvenile court, but you need an attorney there who knows how to get those outcomes.

This Friday: Fear and Criminal Threats

This Friday we have another teenager caught up in the criminal justice system. We no longer live in an era where boys will be allowed to be “just boys”. Any kind of bullying, or threat will be taken very seriously in schools. This week, a Mira Costa High School student was arrested on suspicion of making criminal threats against classmates and staff at the high school. The student is 16 years old. He was arrested after Manhattan Beach Police received a tip that he made threatening statements toward students and staff at Mira Costa High School. Actually, the alleged threats were indirect threats and are still under investigation.

One student at Mira Costa High School is quoted as saying “He [suspect] was doing good in class. I think he got really mad one day.” Perhaps the teen just lost his temper and said completely inappropriate things. The news story doesn’t specify exactly what he said, in order to understand whether his words really trigger a charge for criminal threats. I am sure many of the students in Manhattan Beach’s Mira Costa High School are confused because they think this is a free country – freedom of speech! Well, the freedom is limited.

A criminal threat is when an individual threatens to kill or physically harm someone and that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his or her safety or for the safety of his or her family. The ability to carry out the threat or the intent to carry out the threat are not elements of the crime. A chargeable threat could be something as simple as a recently fired employee calling the former boss and telling the boss that he and the office staff better “watch their backs.” A communication via text could also fall under this law such as if an individual texted their ex that they are going to set fire to her apartment.

Prosecutors must prove that the defendant willfully threatened to kill or serious injure another person; that the defendant intended his verbal, written or electronically communicated statement to be received as a threat; that the threat on its face and under the circumstances was so specific that it conveyed an immediate possibility of execution; and that the threatened individual reasonably feared for his or her safety or for the safety of his or her family.

In the case of this Manhattan Beach teen, he certainly has viable defenses. It is a defense to a criminal threats charge if the threat was not specific, but was vague or ambiguous. Here, the Manhattan Beach Police are already saying the threats were “indirect.” That is something any good defense attorney will latch onto to convince a prosecutor to not even file the criminal case. Another defense is if the recipient of the threat could not have reasonably feared for his or her safety, or was not actually in fear for his or her safety. In the news reports students are quoted as saying they were never in fear. This bodes well for the defendant if those were the same students targeted by his indirect threats. Moreover, if the threats were indirect it would not be reasonable for any recipient to fear for his or her safety.

Fear, as it applies to criminal threat means three different things – that the victim was actually fearful, that the fear was reasonable, and that the fear was sustained (as opposed to momentary or fleeting). Sustained fear may also be another hurdle for the prosecution of this Manhattan Beach teen. The fear must be a state of mind that extends beyond what is momentary, fleeting or transitory. If, after being threated, the students and staff just went right back to their business then this would be good evidence to support the defense that “fear” was not sustained. However, if the students and staff went directly to campus security to have the individual escorted off campus and mounted a campaign to have him suspended because of their fear – then surely that could be deemed sustained fear.

What about freedom of speech, isn’t that a defense? – you ask. Well, California’s criminal threats law does not apply to constitutionally protected speech. What is constitutionally protected speech is angry outbursts or rantings, not speech that is targeted to instill fear in others. Of course, any good defense attorney will still argue that any alleged “threats” were not in fact threats but constitutionally protected speech. This is very applicable to the Manhattan Beach teen because it is widely understood that teens often rant and rave because they are so emotional about everything. No one could possibly be expected to take their outbursts as serious threats.

The crime of “criminal threats” can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If convicted of a misdemeanor the defendant faces up to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine. If convicted of a felony the defendant faces up to four years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. Criminal threats is also a “strike” under California’s three strikes law when charged as a felony and the defendant would be required to serve at least 85% of the sentence before being eligible for release.

Note on Three Strikes Law: If the defendant is later charged with any felony after having a prior strike on their record, the defendant will be referred to as a second striker and the sentence on the new felony will be twice the term otherwise required by law. If the defendant picks up a third felony and has two strikes on his record he will be a third striker and will serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years-to-life in state prison.

You can read the story here. You can also read the school district's letter to parents here.

Furnishing Alcohol to Minors

This week’s Friday story makes me think that the following cities are pretty safe when it comes to violent crime: El Segundo, Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach. This is because officers spent this week in a sting operation to – wait for it – cite people for buying alcohol for minors. Seriously?!

Officers enlisted minors to work undercover and stand outside stores in those three cities and ask 232 adults to buy alcohol for them. Only 13 people were cited. Wow, right? I know what you are thinking, “Isn’t that entrapment?” Well, first let’s deal with the Selling or Furnishing Alcohol to Minors situation.

Giving alcohol to or purchasing it for a person under 21 years of age is a misdemeanor in California and violating this law subjects the defendant to jail time and fines. One of the most common ways to violate California’s “furnishing alcohol to a minor” law occurs at grocery or liquor stores near college campuses. That is, an underage individual will give an adult money and ask that they please buy the underage person some alcohol. Then as the adult returns, an officer busts you either because they were using the minor as one of their agents – or a youthful looking officer – in an undercover sting operation; or they observed the adult furnishing the alcohol to the minor.

Moreover, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has announced that beginning in January of 2011 it will provide money to local law enforcement agencies that employ these type of undercover operations. This may explain the recent stings in three Southbay cities. Such stings are typically known as “shoulder tap” operations.

One defense that can be asserted here would be a Mistake of Fact defense which means that if the judge or jury believes that the defendant honestly and reasonably thought that the minor was of legal drinking age, they could choose to acquit the defendant of the charge. And, then there is Entrapment.

Entrapment serves as an absolute legal defense in California if the defendant can prove that he only committed the charged offense because the police lured him into doing so. A defendant would have to show that this was a situation where a normally law abiding person is induced to commit a crime that he otherwise would not have committed. This only applies to police conduct that is overbearing such as forms of pressure, harassment, fraud, flattery, or threats. Now, herein “lies the rub” because entrapment will not serve as a defense if the officer merely offers you the opportunity to participate in an illegal activity. This is because the law believes that reasonable people presented with a similar situation to commit a crime will resist the temptation to do so.

This rational for the law is a big hurdle to overcome for the 13 defendants in this Southbay sting because hundreds of other people actually did resist the temptation to purchase alcohol for a minor when presented with the opportunity to do so. It will also be difficult to convince a judge or jury that a minor standing outside a liquor store presented himself as overbearing to the defendant, so much so that it rose to the level of entrapment. Prosecutors will argue that the actions of the minors as “agents” of the officer was permissible conduct not subject to California entrapment law because it was merely presenting an opportunity to participate in criminal activity. Undercover operations have typically been deemed as permissible conduct not subject to entrapment laws.

If convicted of furnishing alcohol to minors, the defendants face a maximum $1,000 fine and will be required to perform no less than 24 hours of community service in either an alcohol or drug treatment facility or at a county coroner’s office. If the minor consumed the alcohol and caused either himself or another person to suffer great bodily injury or death, the defendant would face a six-month to one-year county jail sentence and the $1,000 fine.

You can read the story here.