State of West Virginia v. T.L., a juvenile, 16-0054

Juvenile T.L. brought a gun to school, threatened to kill students and himself, and held a classroom hostage; he pleaded guilty to possession of a deadly weapon on school premises and 33 counts of wanton endangerment; other counts were dismissed.
After adjudication, multiple evaluations were prepared (Kuhn Center, Dr. Pearse, Dr. Saar) with mixed conclusions: some recommended a therapeutic, structured setting given offense severity, others rated low recidivism risk but noted missing collateral information.
The probation department performed collateral interviews and produced a report alleging planning, aggression, controlling behavior, and ongoing victim safety concerns; the school reported numerous prior disciplinary incidents.
At disposition, the court considered those evaluations and probation report and committed T.L. to the Division of Juvenile Services until age 21 unless sooner released.
T.L. appealed, arguing the court improperly relied on hearsay at disposition and violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; he also argued the court improperly considered a school counselor’s opinion and failed to address bullying evidence—but those latter arguments were largely rejected as inadequately briefed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of hearsay at juvenile disposition	State: dispositional hearings are exempt from Rules of Evidence; relevant evaluation material may be considered	T.L.: circuit court relied on hearsay in evaluations and probation report	Court: hearsay admissible at disposition; Rule 1101(b) and Syl. Pt. 4 of State v. J.S. allow consideration of diagnostic evaluations and relevant hearsay.
Confrontation Clause (Sixth Amendment)	State: statements in probation report were not "testimonial," prepared after adjudication and used only at disposition	T.L.: admission of out-of-court statements denied his right to confront accusers	Court: no Crawford/Mechling violation because statements were non-testimonial and post-adjudicatory, used only at sentencing/disposition.
Compliance with appellate briefing rules regarding other claims (counselor opinion, bullying)	T.L.: circuit court erred by weighing counselor’s view of remorse and ignoring bullying evidence	State: briefing deficiencies; record citations and authorities lacking	Court: declined to address these assignments—petitioner’s brief failed to comply with Rule 10(c)(7) and an administrative order, so those claims were inadequately developed.

State ex rel. D.D.H. v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 448, 269 S.E.2d 401 (1980) (court must state reasons and address eight factors when commitment/incarceration is selected in juvenile disposition)
State v. J.S., 233 W.Va. 198, 757 S.E.2d 622 (2014) (circuit court may consider all information in a diagnostic evaluation at juvenile disposition; relevant hearsay not prohibited)
State v. Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366, 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements absent unavailability and prior opportunity for cross-examination)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (defines "testimonial" statements for Confrontation Clause purposes)