Legislature(1993 - 1994)

02/26/1993 12:00 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
  HB 100 - PROSECUTION OF JUVENILE FELONS                                      
  Number 675                                                                   
  MS. HORETSKI explained that a draft committee substitute for                 
  HB 100 had been prepared for the members' discussion.  She                   
  went over changes that had been made to the original bill,                   
  which set up a scheme to transfer juveniles into adult court                 
  for certain offenses, but allowed for juveniles to transfer                  
  back to the juvenile system if the juvenile could show that                  
  she or he was "amenable to treatment."  She noted that under                 
  HB 100, the burden of proof of treatability was on the                       
  MS. HORETSKI commented that the proposed committee                           
  substitute contained an "automatic" waiver.  If a juvenile                   
  aged 16 or older were charged with an unclassified or class                  
  A felony, he or she would be moved into adult court, she                     
  MS. HORETSKI mentioned a similar bill, SB 54, which had been                 
  reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  She noted                   
  that the present version of SB 54 was not identical to                       
  either HB 100 or the proposed committee substitute.                          
  However, she noted, it was closer in content to HB 100.                      
  Number 710                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that SB 54 had, when introduced,                   
  looked just like the proposed committee substitute for HB
  100.  The chairman noted that the idea behind HB 100 was to                  
  have juveniles of a certain age who were charged with                        
  serious offenses treated like adults.  He said it was hoped                  
  that HB 100 would serve as a deterrent to some degree.                       
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that two approaches could be taken to                  
  accomplish the goal of HB 100.  One approach, set out in the                 
  proposed committee substitute, would be to automatically                     
  waive certain juvenile offenders to adult court.  Under                      
  another approach, set out in the original HB 100, juveniles                  
  would be automatically waived into adult court, but could                    
  petition to have their cases moved back to juvenile court.                   
  Number 770                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS asked the chairman if he had discussed the                     
  approach taken in the proposed committee substitute with the                 
  sponsor of HB 100.                                                           
  Number 771                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that HB 100's sponsor would not                    
  object to the adoption of the committee substitute.  He                      
  speculated that the Senate bill had been amended the way                     
  that it was to gain enough support for the committee to                      
  report it out.                                                               
  Number 785                                                                   
  MS. HORETSKI stated that, as originally drafted, HB 100                      
  applied to 15- 16- and 17-year-olds who had been charged                     
  with murder or attempted murder, or who had committed an                     
  unclassified or class A felony and had been previously                       
  adjudicated for a felony, or who had been charged with a                     
  felony and had been previously adjudicated as an adult for a                 
  felony.  If any of those situations were true, she said, a                   
  minor would be treated as an adult.  However, a juvenile                     
  could petition to be returned to juvenile court.                             
  TAPE 93-24, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. Horetski to clarify some of the                      
  provisions of the proposed committee substitute.                             
  Number 009                                                                   
  MS. HORETSKI responded that the proposed committee                           
  substitute contained an automatic waiver for 16- and 17-                     
  year-olds, whereas the original bill had an automatic waiver                 
  for 15-, 16-and 17-year-olds.  The original bill applied to                  
  all unclassified and class A felonies, she said.  The                        
  proposed committee substitute provided that 16- and 17-year-                 
  olds charged with murder would be waived into adult court,                   
  where they would stay.                                                       
  Number 033                                                                   
  REP. KOTT asked about allowing a juvenile to petition the                    
  court to be tried in juvenile court, due to mitigating                       
  Number 045                                                                   
  MS. HORETSKI said that the screening and charging of adult                   
  offenders was performed by the Department of Law (DOL).  The                 
  screening and charging of juvenile offenders was conducted                   
  by the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), she                  
  added.  She said that DHSS, in consultation with DOL,                        
  determined the offense with which the juvenile offender                      
  would be charged.  But, she said, if a juvenile was not                      
  charged with either an unclassified or a class A felony, HB
  100 would not apply.  She noted that mitigating                              
  circumstances would be taken into consideration during the                   
  screening and charging process.  HB 100 would not affect                     
  that process, she said.                                                      
  Number 094                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND noted that all of the facts of a case might                    
  not be known until a trial occurred.  However, he said, by                   
  that time, a juvenile would already have been transferred                    
  into the adult justice system.                                               
  Number 118                                                                   
  MS. HORETSKI commented that an investigation was conducted                   
  in all criminal cases.  She said that no charges would be                    
  filed prior to an investigation.                                             
  Number 131                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked at what stage of the proceedings an                    
  attorney was assigned to a juvenile defendant.                               
  Number 136                                                                   
  MS. HORETSKI said that an attorney would be assigned at the                  
  juvenile court's equivalent of an arraignment.                               
  Number 143                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked, When during the process would the                     
  decision be made to charge a juvenile with an offense?  He                   
  said that it was his assumption that law enforcement                         
  officers would treat a juvenile as a juvenile until a                        
  decision was made to charge the individual with an adult                     
  MS. HORETSKI stated that the chairman's assumption was                       
  Number 190                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the automatic waiver                          
  procedure would not go into effect until the decision to                     
  charge a juvenile offender with an adult offense had been                    
  Number 197                                                                   
  REP. KOTT commented that often criminal charges were brought                 
  in an expeditious manner.                                                    
  Number 200                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND said that he had to leave the meeting, but                     
  noted that he would be more comfortable with HB 100 if he                    
  knew how thoroughly DHSS initially investigated crimes.                      
  Number 206                                                                   
  appeared before the committee to answer questions.                           
  Number 209                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if juveniles would be treated as                       
  juveniles until they were formally charged with an adult                     
  Number 218                                                                   
  MR. HINES replied that when a juvenile was referred to DHSS                  
  by law enforcement officials, a police report normally                       
  accompanied the referral.  He stated that intake personnel                   
  screened the report and determined what information still                    
  needed to be gathered.  Once the information was complete,                   
  he said, DHSS and DOL officials met to decide what crime the                 
  juvenile should be charged with.                                             
  MR. HINES noted that if a juvenile was incarcerated, charges                 
  had to be filed within 48 hours.  If the juvenile was not                    
  incarcerated, he said, there was more time to determine the                  
  appropriate charges.                                                         
  Number 247                                                                   
  REP. NORDLUND reiterated his contention that only during a                   
  trial did all the facts of a case come out.  He said that                    
  DHSS' investigation was limited in scope.  He noted that a                   
  limited investigation could result in a juvenile being                       
  improperly placed into the adult system.  By the time all of                 
  the facts were known, he said, it was too late:  the                         
  juvenile was already in the adult system.                                    
  Number 265                                                                   
  that the sponsor favored passage of the original version of                  
  HB 100.  She said that he was concerned about the high                       
  fiscal impact of the proposed committee substitute.                          
  MS. MURRAY noted that there was a "reverse waiver" procedure                 
  in the original HB 100; juveniles who committed certain                      
  crimes would automatically go into the adult justice system,                 
  but could petition to be transferred back into juvenile                      
  court.  She noted that the role of the judge was an                          
  important factor in the process of moving juveniles into and                 
  out of adult court.                                                          
  MS. MURRAY gave an example of a child, who had been abused                   
  for years, murdering his stepfather.  She said that under                    
  the provisions of the committee substitute for HB 100, the                   
  child would probably be automatically waived into adult                      
  court.  Under the original HB 100, she said, if the defense                  
  could prove during a hearing that the juvenile were amenable                 
  to treatment, the juvenile could be transferred back to the                  
  juvenile system.  She noted that the original HB 100                         
  contained a "catch" provision, which was not included in the                 
  committee substitute.                                                        
  Number 329                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the original HB 100 would                     
  probably require that more hearings be held than were                        
  required under the committee substitute.  In that light, he                  
  asked Ms. Murray why it was felt that the committee                          
  substitute would result in a higher cost to the state.                       
  Number 340                                                                   
  MS. MURRAY noted that the committee substitute was very                      
  similar to the original SB 54.  She said that fiscal notes                   
  accompanying the original SB 54 were much higher than the                    
  fiscal notes for HB 100.                                                     
  Number 366                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that sometimes the philosophies of                    
  the Public Defender Agency and the Office of Public Advocacy                 
  were reflected in their fiscal notes.  He asked Ms. Murray                   
  if it would be fair to say that the original HB 100 would                    
  result in a heavier workload for the court system than would                 
  the committee substitute.                                                    
  MS. MURRAY said that she did not know the answer to the                      
  chairman's question.                                                         
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 100 would be held in                       
  committee, and another hearing would be scheduled for a time                 
  when Rep. Bunde could be present.                                            
  CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 1:24 p.m.                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects