Sealed v. Sealed Juvenile, 709 F. App'x 252

Background

In February 2015, a 14–15 year old juvenile (Appellant) was found in a playroom on a military installation behind his 7‑year‑old cousin with her pants and underwear down; witness accounts conflicted about contact and positioning.
The Government charged Appellant by juvenile information with attempting to engage in a "sexual act" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(C) (penetration by hand/finger/object) with a person under 12, an offense that, if by an adult, would be aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
After a bench trial, the district court adjudicated Appellant delinquent and later placed him on supervised probation with a special condition requiring sex‑offender registration.
When announcing its verdict the district court said Appellant “had an intent to commit a sexual act or actually was committing a sexual act, just not the one that everybody thought he was going to commit,” creating ambiguity about which statutory definition of "sexual act" the court relied on.
Appellant did not contemporaneously object at trial; on appeal he argued the court’s statement effected a constructive amendment (or at least a variance) to the information, violating due process.
The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court’s remark is ambiguous as to whether the adjudication matched the charged statutory definition, preventing meaningful appellate review and resolution whether plain‑error or harmless‑error review applies.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s verdict statement constructively amended the juvenile information	Appellant: the court’s comment indicates adjudication on conduct not charged (constructive amendment), violating due process	Government: no amendment; court likely meant the charged §2246(2)(C) sexual‑act or a harmless ambiguity; juvenile proceedings are civil‑like with lesser protections	Vacated and remanded: ambiguity prevents appellate determination whether there was a constructive amendment or mere variance; further proceedings (including possible new trial) required
Standard of review for an unpreserved alleged constructive amendment in juvenile bench trial	Appellant: urged de novo review because judge (not jury) allegedly amended and because objection would be futile	Government: contemporaneous objection rule applies; unpreserved claims reviewed for plain error	Court applied ordinary law: unpreserved constructive‑amendment claims are reviewed for plain error; variances for harmless error; de novo not warranted here
Whether constructive‑amendment protections apply in federal juvenile delinquency proceedings	Government: delinquency adjudications are civil in result; full indictment/Sixth Amendment protections not necessarily applicable; only fundamental fairness required	Appellant: entitled to due process protections ensuring notice of charged conduct; constructive amendment doctrine relevant	Court: unresolved in the abstract but held due process/fundamental fairness required; ambiguity prevented assessing fairness here
Remedy given the ambiguity	Appellant: vacatur and remand (new proceedings)	Government: urged affirmance or harmless error	Court vacated judgment and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with opinion; new trial may be ordered if appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (held mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error review framework for forfeited objections)
Jara‑Favela v. United States, 686 F.3d 289 (discussing reversible per se rule for preserved constructive amendments)
Daniels v. United States, 252 F.3d 411 (defining constructive amendment and its distinction from variance)
Young v. United States, 730 F.2d 221 (explaining difference between constructive amendment and mere variance)