Interest of M.H.P.
2013 ND 61
| N.D. | 2013Background
- State filed a petition on Aug 3, 2011 alleging delinquency for gross sexual imposition by a 15-year-old male against a girl under 15.
- Judicial referee found M.H.P. committed the delinquent act and scheduled a dispositional hearing.
- Dispositional hearing (May 31, 2012) found M.H.P. not in need of treatment or rehabilitation and the petition was dismissed.
- Juvenile court adopted referee’s findings and dismissed the proceeding; no sexual-offender registration order was issued.
- State appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-56(1).
- Court dismisses the appeal in part as barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause while affirming the dismissal of the petition
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars the State’s appeal of the dispositional finding. | M.H.P. cannot escape a delinquency finding after a valid adjudication. | State may appeal under §27-20-56(1) despite prior adjudication. | Double jeopardy bars reviewing the dispositional finding on appeal. |
| Whether the court erred by dismissing the petition rather than the proceeding and whether M.H.P. must register as a sexual offender. | Dismissal of the petition should permit consideration of registration. | Dismissal of the proceeding precludes registration discussion. | Proceeding properly dismissed; registration issue not reached; no second punishment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of B.F., 2009 ND 53 (ND 2009) (double jeopardy bars appellate review after acquittal or reversal)
- Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1975) (double jeopardy applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings)
- In re L.T., 2011 ND 120 (ND 2011) (sex-offender registration as collateral consequence; double jeopardy not apply to collateral matters)
- In re R.Y., 189 N.W.2d 644 (ND 1971) (definition of delinquent act and need for separate finding of rehabilitation)
- In re D.J., 2011 ND 142 (ND 2011) (statutory interpretation of proceedings versus petition)
- In re T.H., 2012 ND 38 (ND 2012) (broad interpretation of proceedings in juvenile law)
- State v. Backlund, 2003 ND 184 (ND 2003) (double jeopardy limits on punishments for same offense)