On Point: 26. Juvenile proceedings

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.

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.

This article by Elizabeth Scott, Natashal Duell and Laurence Steinberg  is one of the top downloads about criminal law on the SSRN this week. It looks at how a juvenile’s brain development and social environment affects his or her decision to engage in risky behavior and criminal activity. It responds to critics who note that all juveniles experience brain development but most don’t commit crimes. And it offers evidence to support more lenient sanctions for juveniles.

There seems to be a debate over this issue. If you practice juvenile law, you might was to weigh in here at the Cyntonia Brown and the “51 to life” project. Attorney Robert Donohoo already has.

State v. A.L., 2017 WI App 72, petition for review granted 6/11/18, affirmed, 2019 WI 20; case activity; review granted 6/11/18

The court of appeals holds that § 938.30(5) permits a juvenile court to order the re-evaluation of competency of a juvenile previously found not competent to proceed even though the juvenile was also found not likely to regain competence within the relevant statutory time frame (12 months, or the maximum criminal sentence for the offense, whichever is less).

Waukesha County DHHS v. T.C.S., 2016AP1000 & 1001, 9/13/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a case type we rarely come across–an appeal of a guardianship arising out of a CHIPS case. (See generally Wis. Stat. § 48.977.) The circuit court awarded custody of the child at issue to his paternal grandparents; this is the mother’s appeal.

State v. A.O., 2016AP2186, District 1, 8/22/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In deciding whether to waive a juvenile into adult court a judge must consider the criteria set out in § 938.18(5). The judge has the discretion to determine how much weight to give to each criterion. J.A.L. v. State, 162 Wis. 2d 940, 960, 471 N.W.2d 493 (1991). According to A.O., the juvenile court in his case didn’t properly apply § 938.18(5)(c), which obliges the court to consider the adequacy and suitability of facilities and services available in the juvenile justice system to treat the juvenile and protect the public. According to the court of appeals, the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion.

State v. D.J.A.R., 2017AP52, District 4, 8/3/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

After D.J.A.R. was adjudicated delinquent for second degree child sexual assault under § 948.02(2), the circuit court ordered him to register as a sex offender. (¶¶4-6). It relied on § 938.34(15m)(am)1., which requires finding that the juvenile’s conduct was sexually motivated and that registration is in the interest of public protection. That was a mistake, because D.J.A.R.’s offense is governed by § 938.34(15m)(bm), which mandates registration unless the requirements of § 301.45(1m) are met. (¶¶11-14). The mistake was harmless, however. (¶15).

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?

Tamara M. Loertscher v. Eloise Anderson, et al., No. 14-cv-870-jdp (W.D. Wis. April 28, 2017)

Under § 48.193, which was created by 1997 Wisconsin Act 292, a juvenile court may treat an unborn child of any gestational age as a child in need of protection or services if the “expectant mother’s habitual lack of self-control in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, exhibited to a severe degree, [poses] a substantial risk” of harm to the unborn child. A federal judge has ruled the statute is void for vagueness.