State v. Keys
1704013610
| Del. Super. Ct. | Mar 1, 2018Background
- Defendant Kyair Keys, born Oct. 6, 2003, was charged in Superior Court at age 13 with Assault 1st, three counts of Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, Possession of a Firearm by Prohibited Juvenile, and two counts of Reckless Endangering; the parties stipulated a fair likelihood of conviction for reverse-amenability purposes.
- Defendant has extensive juvenile history and mental/behavioral health diagnoses (Mood Disorder, ODD, ADHD, Conduct Disorder, substance abuse) and has twice been committed to Rockford; Family Court found him not competent under 10 Del. C. § 1007A.
- The State originally charged him in Superior Court to access its competency restoration program; Family Court competency findings and services were thereby disrupted and the child has remained on Family Court's Competency Calendar without adjudication.
- Two psychologists (one for each side) opined he is not competent; the State sought either Superior Court competency re-determination/enrollment in the restoration program or to bar a reverse-amenability hearing if he remains not competent.
- The Superior Court declined to re-determine competency, held that competency does not bar a reverse-amenability hearing, weighed the § 1011(b) factors, and concluded transfer back to Family Court best serves the child and society.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court must re-determine competency despite Family Court finding under §1007A | Superior Court must follow §1007A procedures and re-determine competency so defendant can access Superior Court restoration services | Family Court already made a comprehensive determination; re-determination is unnecessary and burdensome | Court declined to re-determine; adopted Family Court's competency finding that defendant is not competent |
| Whether a defendant found not competent may obtain a reverse-amenability hearing under §1011(b) | If not competent, defendant cannot meaningfully participate and should be precluded from reverse-amenability hearing | Competency status should not bar the statutorily-mandated hearing; exclusion would create a Catch-22 discouraging competency challenges | Court held competency does not preclude the right to a reverse-amenability hearing |
| Whether factors under §1011(b) warrant transfer to Family Court | Serious violent charges and risk argue against transfer; Superior Court can restore competency and prosecute | Defendant is amenable to juvenile rehabilitation; Family Court can provide age-appropriate services and oversight | Weighing §1011(b) factors, court found transfer favored overall (one prong split; other factors favored transfer) |
| Whether court should order Superior Court competency restoration program enrollment | State requested enrollment to restore competency and permit prosecution | Forcing enrollment would confuse process, is not mandated, and Family Court procedures are more appropriate | Court declined to order enrollment in Superior Court restoration program; transfer to Family Court and its §1007A framework is preferred |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. State, 653 A.2d 241 (Del. 1994) (discusses reverse-amenability and juvenile transfer principles)
- Marine v. State, 624 A.2d 1181 (Del. 1993) (cited regarding juvenile transfer jurisprudence)
- Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185 (Del. 1992) (cited regarding juvenile transfer jurisprudence)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (recognizes developmental differences between juveniles and adults)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (addresses juvenile sentencing and diminished culpability)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (considers youth as mitigating in criminal context)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (applies Miller retroactively and discusses juvenile maturity considerations)