People v. Baum, 979 N.E.2d 120

M.M., age 13 in 2011, alleged three molestation incidents by Baum between 2004 and 2009, when Baum was a minor.
Baum was born August 20, 1992, making him no older than 16 during the alleged offenses.
In December 2011, the State charged Baum by information with three counts of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(2)).
In February 2012, Baum moved to dismiss, arguing the case should be in juvenile court since he was under 17 at the time of the offenses.
The trial court granted the motion, concluded the appropriate forum was juvenile court, and offered transfer possibilities; the State declined to transfer.
The court later denied the State’s motion to reconsider; the State appealed, contesting the dismissal and forum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether charges may proceed by information when defendant was under 17 at the time of the offenses.	People contends information is permissible; jurisdiction lies in criminal court.	Baum argues delinquency proceedings in juvenile court were required due to age at offense.	No; information improper; juvenile court jurisdiction applies.
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the charges based on Juvenile Court Act §5-120.	People asserts statutory exceptions permit criminal prosecution despite age.	Baum asserts §5-120 excludes criminal prosecutions for under-17.	The court affirmed dismissal under §5-120; no exceptions apply.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to proceed in criminal court or was bound to transfer to juvenile court.	People argues jurisdiction in criminal court was proper and transfer unnecessary.	Baum contends the court lacked authority to adjudicate in criminal court due to age.	Court did not have proper jurisdiction in criminal court; dismissal affirmed.

In re Luis R., 239 Ill.2d 295 (Ill. 2006) (court rejects advisory opinions and clarifies jurisdictional boundaries under juvenile statute)