1993-04-20                     House Journal                      Page 1382
SB 54                                                                        
House Judiciary Committee                                                      
Letter of Intent for                                                           
HCS CSSB 54(JUD)                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
"It is the intent of the House Judiciary Committee, in its adoption of         
HCS for CS for SB 54 (JUD), to alter the jurisdiction of the criminal          
courts over juvenile offenders charged with murder and to require the          
juvenile offender for whom waiver to criminal court has been sought            
for other offenses to prove that he or she is amenable to treatment in         
the juvenile justice system.                                                   
                                                                               
The House Judiciary Committee, in its adoption of HCS CSSB
(JUD), intends to alter the substantive legal rights of juvenile             
offenders.  In the judgement of the committee, the scope of a court's          
jurisdiction and the allocation of burdens of proof in legal actions are       
matters of substantive law, not matters of procedure.                          
                                                                               
It is the judgement of the committee that, once the screening                  
authorities have decided that a juvenile offender is not amenable to           
treatment in the juvenile court system and have filed a petition seeking       
waiver of the juvenile into the adult criminal court system, it is the         
offender himself who is in the best position to show that he would be          
treatable in the juvenile court system.  The juvenile offender and his         
attorney are the ones who know the most about the offender's family            
and educational experiences, and are in the best position to present           
information relating to the issue of treatability to the court.                
                                                                               
For example, under the Alaska Court of Appeals' decision in R.H. v.           
State, 777 P. 2d 204 (Alaska App. 1989), the state may not compel a           
juvenile offender to submit to a psychiatric evaluation for the purpose        
of determining his amenability to treatment in the juvenile court              
system. In its decision, the court acknowledged that "in some                  
situations, the lack of information concerning the psychiatric condition       
of the accused child will undoubtedly make the state's burden more             
difficult to meet." 777 P. 2d at 211.  In the view of the committee, to        
place the burden of proof upon the party who has the greatest access           
to the facts relevant to the issue of treatability is a sound public policy    
choice.                                                                        
                                                                               
A Senate letter of intent (page 570 of the Senate Journal) was also adopted.