On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA: Circuit court need not weigh all criteria equally when determining whether to waive juvenile into adult court.
State v. M.P., 2024AP32, 6/26/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s order waiving M.P. into adult court based on M.P.’s age and seriousness of the offense.
What do Stalin, Wisconsin, and the Slenderman case have in common?
State v. Morgan E. Geyser, 2020 WI App 58; case activity (including briefs)
Morgan Geyser, one of the two 12 year old defendants in the Slenderman case, was charged in adult court with attempted 1st degree intentional homicide. At her preliminary hearing, the court found probable cause that she committed a crime for which it had exclusive jurisdiction. On appeal, Geyser argued that the adult court had found the facts necessary to mitigate attempted 1st degree homicide to attempted 2nd degree homicide and thus it lost jurisdiction. She also argued that her custodial statements to police should have been suppressed because her Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The court of appeals rejected both arguments.
SCOW addresses juvenile competency proceedings
State v. A.L. , 2019 WI 20, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2017 WI App 72; case activity
This appeal centers on the proper interpretation of §938.30(5)(d) and §938.13 governing juveniles found not competent during a delinquency proceeding. SCOW holds a circuit court may resume suspended juvenile delinquency proceedings to reexamine the competency of a juvenile who was initially found not competent and not likely to become competent within the statutory period. It also holds that circuit courts retain competency over juvenile delinquency proceedings even after the accompanying JIPS order has expired.
SCOW to decide when a juvenile’s competency can be re-evaluated
State v. A.L., 2016AP880, review of a published court of appeals decision granted 6/11/18; case activity
Where a juvenile has been found incompetent to stand trial, Wis. Stat. § 938.30(5)(e)1. says he or she can be later reevaluated–but only if he or she was found likely to regain competence. Nevertheless, the court of appeals, relying on a tendentious reading of the legislative history, decided even a juvenile who has been found unlikely to become competent can also be reevaluated.
In Wisconsin, we can send people to prison for things they did when they were 5
State v. Shaun M. Sanders, 2018 WI 51, 5/18/18, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2017 WI App 22, case activity (including briefs)
The state can criminally punish a person for something he or she did as a small child.
SCOW to decide whether Wisconsin recognizes a minimum age for criminal responsibility
State v. Shaun M. Sanders, 2015AP2328-CR, granting review of a published court of appeals decision, 6/13/17, case activity (including briefs
Issue (copied from the petition for review):
Can a person be criminally responsible for acts he allegedly committed before the age of original juvenile court jurisdiction?
Court to State: Ends of adult court jurisdiction don’t justify means violating juvenile code
State v. Cody Phillips, 2014 WI App 3; case activity
This case reached the court of appeals via a petition for leave to appeal a non-final order.
The State’s juvenile delinquency petition alleged that Phillips committed one count of 1st-dgree sexual assault of child by use or threat of force and a second count of 2nd-degree assault of a child. At the State’s request, the juvenile court waived Phillips into adult court on both counts and ultimately pled no contest to two counts of 2nd-degree sexual assault of a child.
Manipulation of Adult Jurisdiction over Juvenile Offense; Bail Jumping – Jurisdiction to Impose Conditions; Sanctions – Appellate Violations
State v. Drew E. Bergwin, 2010 WI App 137; for Bergwin: Roberta A. Heckes; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Manipulation of Adult Jurisdiction over Juvenile Offense
When the State brings a criminal charge against an adult defendant for an offense committed as a juvenile, the State must affirmatively show that the delay in charging wasn’t intended to manipualte the system to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction,