*1 In the Matter BROWN,
KENNETH a Minor Appellant BROWN, KENNETH No. 17,997 Appeals United States Court of Third Circuit Argued January 26, 1970
See
Decided 23, 1971 See, also, F.2d *2 John D. St. Esq., Christiansted, Croix, V.I., for Marsh,
appellant Attorney Assistant General, Brown, William H. Esq., appellee Croix, St. Christiansted, V.I., for Ganey Argued Judge, before Hastie, and Stahl, Chief Judges Circuit Judge, Ganey,
Reargued before Hastie, Freedman, Chief Seitz, Van Adams Dusen, Aldisert, and Gibbons, Judges Circuit
opinion of the court Judge Circuit FREEDMAN,
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Division of the Virgin Court of the Islands found that Kenneth 14-year-old juvenile, Virgin Brown, had violated Is- against petit lands larceny statute and committed him *3 Department Virgin of Social Welfare of the Islands age until years. he should attain the The District petition Court denied his for and its leave to action is before for us review.
I. September complain- On 22, Claude Mahon, ing returning on witness, from a swim at Pelican Cove, disappeared St. noticed that his wallet had from the Croix, had trousers he left in his In an automobile. immediate culprit, companions search for the two Mahon’s en- ques- countered Kenneth near Brown the beach. After some they tioning him searched and discovered a dollar bill ten pocket, and one dollar in two bills his the same denomina- They missing tions as those from Mahon’s wallet. elicited money the statement from Brown that had he obtained boys. Accompanied by from had two other Mahon, who rejoined they police police. took now Brown to the The them, any questioning from until arrival refrained they they Before Brown’s whom had uncle, summoned. began questioning police of his their advised Brown they attorney, remain and but silent to have any might make him that he failed warn statements
.315 against judge could be used The trial later found that him. “substantially rights.” Brown had been told of his charged petit larceny Brown was thereafter with before violation of Code 1084.1 He was tried V.I. Division of Munici- the Juvenile Domestic Relations pal represented by court-appointed he was where Court, again government’s counsel. At the case and close for counsel moved conclusion of the defendant’s trial, government ground failed to had dismissal on the that judge charge beyond prove doubt. trial a reasonable guilty it un- make found defendant circumstances beyond proof applied that he the standard certain reasonable doubt.2 provides: 1 14V.I. Code larceny “1083. Grand (cid:127) property— takes “Whoever value; “(1) or is of more which from $100 grand larceny shall be “(2) person of another —commits years. imprisoned for not than 10 more larceny 1084. Petit “§ guilty larceny under other circumstances commits “Whoever imprisoned larceny not than petit not more $200 shall fined year, more than or both.” case, Ready Mr. Marsh. the defendant’s side of Court: “The rests, time, government the defendant after the “Mr. Marsh: At this charge beyond ground against the defendant moves dismiss the doubt, charge did proven that he a reasonable not been carry away willfully cash. .steal $12 *4 beyond You mean a reasonable doubt. It have to be “The doesn’t Court: prima a facie case. sir, beyond a doubt. reasonable “Mr. Marsh: No beyond Government’s case it has to be At the end of the “The 'Court: doubt ? That’s— a reasonable proof required put any until I we not submit are “Mr. Marsh: beyond they proven a reasonable doubt. a case have they beyond go proven case until have a You don’t ahead “The Court: me, I know when law Mr. Marsh. don’t doubt ? That’s new a reasonable it was passed. respectfully insufficient evidence I submit there’s ... “Mr. Marsh: proof.
put to his the defendant testimony have it after lunch. If we’ll there’s “The Court: testimony. offers no Defendant “Mr. Marsh: you argue right, gentlemen, do want to or submit? All “The Court: submits, your Honor. Government “Mr. The Ellison: by argument my in covered motion. I I “Mr. think Marsh: I think so. would “The Court: charged having guilty of defendant as stolen this finds the “The court complaint pocket from Claude Mahon." money in the described petitioned Defendant the District Court for leave appeal judgment guilt from the commitment and claiming Municipal that thereon, the evidence before the inadequate guilt beyond Court was to establish his reasonable doubt and that the statements and other evi- adequate dence taken from him were obtained without rights. petition notice of his constitutional The filed was pursuant general 4to Code V.I. which in authorizes appeals Municipal from the Court to the District Court as requires but and in domestic relations “they may specially cases taken if allowed district court.”3 petition
The District Court denied for leave to appeal subsequent petition rehearing and a for in which for first time defendant called attention to the recent (1967), In decision of re Gault, U.S. which he required mandatory appeal claimed as a matter of due process.
II. Defendant contends that was abuse of dis deny for him cretion the District Court leave to insufficiency claims of of the evi view his serious against inadmissibility dence his statements him, apply failure to and the evidence the stand seized, guilt beyond proof Dis a reasonable doubt. The ard of gave appeal, trict Court no reasons its denial leave to knowledge are therefore without considera- and we domestic has juvenile by relations trict court.” full “The District Court orders of been provision judgment and domestic relations relations cases convicted, reads: they or order cases, may other be taken appellate jurisdiction than on a appealed cases all criminal cases in which the defendant only in all civil from, plea if be taken but specially cases, in guilty. Appeals to review allowed all *5 party aggrieved and domestic by judgments the dis- civil, outweighed it tions which must have believed these serious proc- the last of which later vindicated claims, was on due grounds Winship, (1970). ess in In re 397 U.S. Were required we to decide the District now whether necessary in abused its a remand discretion, would be order to obtain a statement of reasons for action.4 its a fundamental than the however, There more issue is, question there narrow whether was abuse of discretion. statutory provision It is on which the District whether the Court undertook to discretion the Bill of exercise violates Organic Rights Act of contained in Revised Rights Virgin Although the Bill conferred Islands.5 Congress, expresses congressional to act it intention Virgin applicable to the Is Constitution make the federal possible its extent consistent with status lands to the fullest Rights, territory.6 A Bill of as claim of violation claim unconstitu to a amounts substance therefore, only tionality, ordinarily if cannot reached a case which there are considera be Here, however, otherwise decided. compel if the issue is treated a decision even tions which argued. A fully The issue has been constitutional one. question of abuse now is limited decision which very again bring case. this issue us discretion general, and the District is a recurrent one issue engage delicate not continue Court should exercising if discretion its such difficult function of often deny appeals no discretion are as overhung deranged if it be were function would them. Its invalidity statutory provision, a if threat brought the forefront into could threat which important For these was denied. leave where proper affect the adminis practical considerations, 5 1 V.I. Code Cf. See Scott infra, v. 9.n. Annot. Commanding Officer, p. 92, quoted infra, F.2d 1132 Cir. n. 9. (3 1970). *6 justice7 supervisory and in tration of the exercise of our Virgin jurisdiction over the courts of the we con Islands,8 validity statutory provision. sider the
III.
statutory provi-
claim
turn to
that
the
We therefore
the
right
equal protection of
sion violates defendant’s
by
Organic
guaranteed
himto
3 of
Revised
the laws
§
Virgin
appeal
permits
Act
it
because
Islands,9
judgments
from
District Court
and orders of the
and domestic relations cases
when
right
by
specially
District Court
allowed
while
in all
and criminal.10
is absolute
other
civil
cases,
to minds accustomed
However unusual
it
seem
availability
appeals,
been
to the almost unlimited
it has
right
appellate
process
require
that
does not
held
due
may not be
Once it is
there
extended, however,
review.11
7
241,
Gilfedder,
355, 357,
242
v.
321 Mass.
72 N.E.2d
See Commonwealth
argued.
(1947):
constitutionality
fully
...
“The issue of
has been
[I]t
again
certainly
circumstances
in the near future.
In these
would
arise
...
public
duty
.
. the
to deal with
funda
it
mental issue.”
our
in the interest of
.
seems
88, 93,
270,
State,
(1929):
v.
201
N.E.
275
Sarlls
Ind.
going
the constitu-
that
can
without
into
“It is true
this case
be decided
controversy
questions,
before
tional
but we believe that
merits of
ques-
completely
of such
cannot be
determined without
consideration
us
exhaustively
questions
briefed
both
tions. The constitutional
have been
public importance,
parties,
an ultimate decision of them must some time
of the fact that
manifest
and in view of their
court,
be arrived at in this
public
holding
cannot
court that a
officer
be com-
and of the
of our own
unconstitutional,
obey
he
sued in
pelled
that
even when
is
a statute
94, n. 62 and
. . .”
C.J.S. Constitutional Law
mandamus.
See also 16
§
therein.
cases cited
Lovell,
422,
(3
Virgin
Cir.
Islands v.
6 V.I.
imposed upon discriminatory limitations which violate equal protection to the of the laws.12 question, inquiry reduced to therefore, guilty whether defendant’s condition as a found sufficiently petit larceny placed him in a different status from that of adult convicted of the same offense *7 may right granted of he be denied the absolute adults.
Beginning
In re
decision of
with the watershed
juveniles
Supreme
that
it clear
Gault the
has made
guarantee
process. It
the
of due
are within the shelter of
juvenile
that
to the constitu
has therefore held
a
is entitled
n
hearing
adequate
protection
and
notice of the
tional
right
charged against him,13
offense
the
the nature
the
against
hearing,14
privilege
com
to have counsel at the
the
right
pulsory
wit
to confront the
the
self-incrimination,15
pro
right
adequate
against
notice
him,16
nesses
ceedings certifying
and the
adult,17
him for trial as an
proof
against
adjudication
him based on
to have the
pre
beyond
charge
than
doubt rather
a reasonable
ponderance
cases were
evidence.18 While these
process
of the Fourteenth
due
clause
decided under the
withholding
ap
similar
no reason for
there is
Amendment,
appropriate as
equal protection
plication of
clause
juvenile
proceedings.19
pects
court
ju-
acquired
Municipal Court
In
us,
the case before
172(1) (D),
4
under
Code §
risdiction of the defendant
V.I.
“alleged
territorial
violated ...
[a]
he was
have
because
[12]
41.
Ibid at
[14]
[13]
In re
Griffin
U.S.
Gault,
[353]
v.
Illinois,
(1963).
387 U.S.
351 U.S.
[33]
(1967).
[12]
(1956);
see also
Douglas
v.
California,
[372]
[15]
[16]
Kent v. United
Ibid
Ibid
In re
Cf.
(1968).
Knight
at
Winship,
55.
56.
v.
juvenile determination of and criminal trials, infringement bility propriety of the state’s and the custody liberty. that care It is true defendant’s given from that differ then afforded which is both duration.21 And while adult in both nature characteristically proceedings aspects are these Supreme declaration Court’s informal and flexible, Rights nor the Bill of Amendment “neither the Fourteenth prevent expresses its determination is for adults alone”22 flexibility informality into degeneration this *8 unguided caprice. required to trial was reason defendant’s
For this process. requirements of due to the fundamental adhere integrity the trial, of then was What was stake guaran by safeguarded adjudicatory process those was society’s treat of a civilized hallmarks which are the tees liberty invade. it seeks ment of those whose juvenile flexibility ad informality of right of subsequent make the judication treatment and the certainly safe vital to not appeal perhaps less, more, possi process juvenile from the guard subject to the those exempli against This is degeneration in Gault. warned ble period of over by for a commitment defendant’s fied here imprisonment for justified years for an offense three con find no year case. We an adult criminal at most one concept separate of a lying core of at the sideration 21 R.R. v. In re V.I. dis. U.S. — Gault, supra, at Code — Texas, 172(1) Court of Civil (1970). (2) 13. are quoted Appeals full, infra, of Texas, n. 22. S.W.2d (1969), app. system justice juveniles impaired of for which is appeal. being appellate Far from harmful, review is a safeguard juvenile system beneficial for both the and the juvenile accused. We therefore conclude that was a denial equal protection deny of the laws to to defendant right of review accorded to adults. present juvenile
While in proceedings case the adjudicated that defendant had violated a criminal statute Virgin regard we believe no valid distinction Islands, ing appeal may the absolute be drawn between juvenile allege specific those cases which violation of the every juvenile criminal law and other case which a brought categories before the Court. The years age cases children under 18 certain beyond age minors out in 4 172.23It are set V.I. Code § categories will be seen from these that the same conduct of (subsection (1) who has violated a criminal law provides: Section 172 “Except provided subject juris- as otherwise herein and to the exclusive arising diction of the district court in causes under the laws of the United States, municipal and domestic division of court relations jurisdiction proceedings: shall have “(1) Concerning any years age living child under 18 or found within n judicial (A) neglected proper necessary the support division who is or required by law, medical, psychiatric, or education as or as to psychological necessary well-being, or other care or his who is parent custodian, (B) occupation, abandoned his or other whose be- havior, condition, injure environment or such associations are as to or the control of endanger others, (C) beyond his welfare or that of who is parent custodian, (D) alleged his attempted other who is to have violated or any federal, state, territorial, to violate munici- or local law or *9 pal ordinance, regardless occurred; of where violation “(2) Concerning years any age living minor 18 of or older found or judicial alleged attempted within the division to have violated or vio- any federal, state, late municipal prior territorial or local law or ordinance having years age, being empowered become 18 of the court to deal with provisions chapter such a relating children; minor under the of this “(3) custody guardianship person any To determine or of years age living judicial child under 18 division, of within the for the adoption parental rights of minor terminate in connection with proceedings; such “(4) judicial For marriage consent to years of a child under 18 of age, required law; when such consent is “(5) For the treatment mentally or commitment aof defective or mentally emotionally disordered or years age.” disturbed child under 18 of readily (D)) in most cases either as evidence would serve categories charge under other basis for a or as entire juvenile delinquency, endangering as the welfare such being beyond (subsection (1) (B)) or himself or others (1) parent (subsection custodian control of his other (subsection neglected (C)) or or abandoned as one who is (1) (A)). the interrela- exhaust This does not, course, provisions all them, In tion of 172. between various § findings it is a decree based when the court makes jurisdictional of fact that a child falls one of these within provisions, employ the that it to statute authorizes juvenile Code characteristic court under V.I. remedies Among decree court 2506. the remedies which the § commitment. The under of these cases is § determining not much whether is so factor, therefore, juvenile charged commission of a crime what is with the category charge rather other but within, falls § juvenile disposition Municipal what Court makes himself in If of its decree is its decree. the ultimate result juvenile’s liberty, immediate the loss of the whether the finding designating delinquent or a him a occasion is as realistically that is criminal, the result the same criminality.24 In all from a declaration would follow liberty deprived in- cases there where the his equally appeal. an heres absolute accordingly, 33 of of the V.I.
We Title hold, requires a Code is invalid to the that it extent special obtain the District Court for allowance of the from the in a case in which [24] Winship juvenile courts, be found years not “We U.S.] themselves obviate the need for criminal due at made clear in comparable 365-66, quoting to be ... for 36.” “delinquent” ‘[a] in seriousness [Gault] proceeding Gault at 36: . . . that subjected where the to a civil labels felony prosecution.’ to the issue is whether loss process safeguards good intentions do of his [In the child will liberty re Gault, *10 Municipal imposes upon
decision of the a restraint liberty. his
The order of the District Court will be vacated case remanded to the District Court with direction to petition appeal ap- treat the as a notice to hear the peal on the merits. Judge, concurring. Circuit
SEITZ, I majority. concur in the result reached agree Judge I opinion with Freedman’s to the extent he discretionary right appeal juveniles that the holds found in V.I. Code 33 constitutes a § violation juvenile’s equal protection rights in that it him the. denies same isas accorded adults convicted unnecessary same criminal I find offense. to decide constitutionally pro- whether section is also defective viding only discretionary appeal right juvenile for a deprived liberty other situations where he has been of his Municipal a result a decree Court. Judge, dissenting. Circuit GANEY, impression ques- This case one of is first and concerns the tion of whether 33, V.I. Code,1 Constitutional. The' legal question fourteen-year-old boy here involves con- under victed, § 1084, Code,2 V.I. under the circum- largely majority opinion, forth stances set in the with appellant voluntarily additional fact that went with This section reads as follows: “Petit This party aggrieved by in all review the which the defendant Appeals and domestic relations cases by the district court.” more than section other circumstances reads $200 judgments civil, juvenile as follows: “The District Court has and domestic imprisoned and orders of the judgment and domestic relations cases been guilty not more than 1 they may relations convicted, larceny. order petit cases, be taken other than Whoever larceny appealed year, and in appellate jurisdiction Court in all civil or both.” commits and from, all criminal cases in. a if shall specially be taken but plea larceny fined not allowed guilty. cases, under *11 companion police alleged to the the victim and his station- gotten money them had the from two told he enroute boys, repeated police at in the he the station other which pressure, promise' presence fact no of his uncle. This reveals happening pre- while this was coercion whatsoever and, (1964) vious to Escobedo v. U.S. Illinois, (1966), nevertheless, v. 384 U.S. Miranda Arizona, voluntarily made and no wise, the statements were were, they matter to the defendant as a and, fact, harmful anything, defense and beneficial to constituted his were, if. him. majority portion, opinion in one follows:
The holds as equal a conclude that it was denial the “We therefore deny right protection to to defendant the laws that It seem accorded to adults.” would therefore review point majority the unconstitu- the holds statute at this only applicable the ad hoc that it basis; tional on an is involving after this defendant. However, circumstances majority problem, concludes: discussion of the further accordingly, Code 4 of the V.I. that of Title hold, § “We requires to obtain that it a invalid to the extent is appeal special District Court for allowance of Municipal decision Court in a case in which the from the upon imposes his Municipal restraint Court a holding finality statute liberty.” of this renders liberty juveniles is their to all where as unconstitutional, only to no little This to that extent. leads restrained uncon- If first is instance, statute, confusion. reason of the denial as to this defendant stitutional granted him an adult, a to a full which finally, then it that a conflict seems me there is when, holding the extent makes the statute unconstitutional liberty any imposes upon juvenile’s that it a a restraint — juvenile. per Here it should noted that the se statute imposes not but that it to the extent unconstitutional, liberty, upon juvenile’s in turn, and this, restraint in all eviscerate because the instances would § majority can forth in sets 172, custody guilty, guilty place him in find a not put probation, him forth on as set in V.I. Code, § any a criminal offense or and in whether it be case, such delin- minor forth matters set section, always quency, probation contains a restriction etc., liberty. open juvenile’s Pandora’s would least, This, by Municipal every judgment Court which, Box *12 liberty necessity, flood District and the must restrain his trifling appeals, instant one, such as the Court with really portion to the discretion 33, render most, § special granting allowance in in District Court vested the juveniles, to worthless. I at the stated
I to Constitutional. As hold be impression for the first reason a case of this was outset, Virgin and Islands well the that this Section has served inception many through since its firm revisions stood by including complete an revision in the Code of 1921, Secretary Advisory created Commission, challenge in the Courts in and this is its first Interior age century. lends I hold that do not in half a While hoary, sanctity fault serious no matter how law, in face struck down, shown before should be here shown. circumstances my expressed in in the statute, The differentiation legislative judgment, proper function exercise of a Legislature. a reasonable This differentiation is the local compelled by arbitrary and is one and not or frivolous, separate differentiating very and itself between statute systems procedure, disparate aimed at correc- court one punitive. Here, tion and and the rehabilitation, other, jurisdiction Legislature in the courts invested atmosphere, dispensed unin- in an informal and relaxed study by strict where a hibited rules evidence, background parental individual is his life made, whole his economic his moral status, situation, environment, dealing juveniles thus a court with these characteristics of wholly gave Legislature, and concerned with them, my place degree finality judgment, warrant some only by expertise, to be checked exercise its screening special in a for for allowance District arbitrary dispositions appeals are where unreasonable by Municipal Court. made (1956) majority cites Griffin v. U.S. Illinois, Douglas (1963), support v. U.S. California, my position, judgment, their factual situ-
of their but, comparable to instant cases ations are not case. These dependent upon concern was whose adults, ability necessary pay in the former case their fees, appeal, transcript the courts for a in the latter, Procedure it was to conform with a Rule Civil wherein ex-parte required record examination to make appointment of counsel for to determine whether *13 advantage the petitioner not to would or would helpful appellate In in- both to the court. defendant or discrimination rich was broad between the there stances, poor. and the majority’s on In main reliance is Re Gault, the
However, repeated (1967), with references thereto, U.S. quoting Winship, from In 397 U.S. Re one instance, supra, portion (1970), In from Re which Gault, a stage only adjudicatory portion of the has reference to the nothing proceeding. In Re Gault whatsoever to do with has speaks directly precise, appellate procedures and to it in crystal-clear language, page the Court states: where 13, opinion impact not in of these “We do this consider the provisions totality upon the relation- constitutional juvenile ship not consider of the the state. We do even ‘delinquents.’ relating juvenile For process to the entire procedures or example, not concerned with we are here stages rights prejudicial applicable to constitutional process, attention to direct our nor do we process. dispositional note post-adjudicative 48, See or by problems presented to us infra. consider We proceedings deter- a which relate to the ease. These this ‘delinquent’ a a is to whether mination made as part, alleged the con- on his with misconduct a result of institution.” sequence to a state be committed he Commission National Crime concerns the Note 48, pre-adjudica- problems Report, inter “The alia, states, post-adjudication dis- juveniles, and of tion treatment of juvenile process; unique what we hence position, to are require- regard precedural opinion in this with hold necessary applica- stage adjudicatory no has ments at the Again, juvenile process.” steps bility to other a not held that page states: “This Court the Court provide ‘tn required Federal Constitution State In appellate at all.’ review appellate or a courts Supreme Court must reverse the fact that we view of writ dismissal of the affirmance of Arizona’s this not rule on need corpus other we reasons, habeas provide upon present the failure question in case recording hearings transcript indeed, or, — grounds Judge for his to state the the Juvenile failure of supra, apparent Gault that In Re It is thus conclusion.” relevancy question posed here. to the no indeed, has, statutory trifling violation here was a rather offense, taking subject larceny petit $12 —and —the custody years, fourteen-year-old depriving for four thus *14 liberty during action most him of and freedom of the his truly early part sentence, is a harsh life, formative his previous delinquency especially no when the record shows surrounding aggravating occurrence, circumstances the punishment. Sentences called for such severe which comport correctional with its should Juvenile Court system objectives as of the aims and and rehabilitative guiding long envisioned it structured, punitive or retribution. helpful than sanctions rather hand, years four for commitment sentence —a While this by not asserted Department of Welfare —was Social alleged complaints, one of his for the as counsel by majority remand for as a reason nor mentioned unconstitutionality I alleged of § it not for its were strongly mitigation attention warrant should its feel of this court. experienced that an able to be remembered
It is denied Judge different occasions two of this Court, argued right appeal. there was On first occasion insufficiency failure and the the evidence to him the give doctrine benefit of the the defendant the court to record would An of the examination doubt. of reasonable appeal, of the as much support the denial finding sufficient evidence record discloses from the can seen judgment be and, of conviction question colloquy court and counsel, between used presented to be to the court doubt was reasonable guideline the defendant’s the determination aas saying, by “I agreeing guilt therewith court court that the can made fair inference think so.”, would in the determination doubt doctrine of reasonable used the appeal, petition In guilt. Re Gault, the second of his On brought of the court supra, to the attention was argument. again petition after denied the I am Constitutional, I hold the statute while However, District Court abused further hold that the constrained to respect to this defendant its discretion this instance as imposed Municipal Court the sentence which was *15 judgment I would vacate the Therefore, the lower a remand of court direct the case imposition custody for the and if under sentence, imposed Department one of Social Welfare is under year, accompanying therefor statement of the reason custody year imposed if for a or more is filed; should be juvenile’s repeated violation of. reason require longer offenses contained in which would finding period for his a more detailed rehabilitation, specific facts and the therefrom should conclusions drawn showing period of for the rehabilitation made, be juvenile’s required, and should filed with correction is judgment. THE OF VIRGIN ISLANDS
GOVERNMENT
v. ENRIQUE RIVERA, FELIX JOSE DAVID CASTILLO ENRIQUE RIVERA, Appellant
JOSE
No. 18,818 Appeals United Court of States Third Circuit January Argued 28, 1971 Decided March 1, 1971
See, also, F.2d