The Honorable James Warren Smith, Jr. Frio County Attorney 500 East San Antonio, Box 1 Pearsall, Texas 78061-3100
Re: Whether a community supervision and corrections department may refuse to supervise a sixteen-year-old defendant who has been con-victed of perjury in a criminal proceeding and placed on community supervision by the criminal court (RQ-990)
Dear Mr. Smith:
You ask whether a community supervision and corrections department may refuse to supervise a sixteen-year-old defendant who has been convicted of perjury in a criminal proceeding and placed on community supervision by the criminal court. We conclude that a community supervision and corrections department must supervise a defendant who has been convicted of perjury in a criminal proceeding and placed on community supervision by the criminal court, regardless of the defendant's age.
As you note, a person between the ages of ten and seventeen, who would generally be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system, may be tried for perjury or aggravated perjury in either juvenile court1 or in a regular criminal proceeding;2
thus, juvenile courts and criminal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a person between the ages of ten and seventeen who commits perjury or aggravated perjury.3 You explain that in your county a sixteen-year-old defendant was tried in a criminal proceeding by a criminal court, convicted of perjury under Penal Code section
You suggest that a community supervision and corrections department is not authorized to supervise a sixteen-year-old defendant "because the juvenile would of necessity be exposed to misdemeanant and felonious probationers when they report monthly to the department." You rely on Family Code section
We disagree with the conclusion that a community supervision and corrections department is not authorized to supervise a sixteen-year-old defendant who has been convicted of perjury in a criminal proceeding and placed on community supervision by the court. First, Family Code section
Second, as explained above, the laws of this state provide that a child may be prosecuted for perjury in a criminal proceeding. Seesupra notes 1-3 and accompanying text. Given those provisions, we believe that a sixteen-year-old defendant who is tried for perjury in a criminal proceeding is no less an adult in the eyes of the law than a child certified as an adult under Family Code section
In sum, we do not believe that a community supervision and corrections department is authorized to refuse to supervise a sixteen-year-old defendant under the circumstances you describe. If the community supervision and corrections department is concerned about exposing the sixteen-year-old defendant to adult defendants on its premises, the department may take steps to minimize such contacts, such as providing a separate waiting area or arranging for the defendant to meet with his community supervision officer at a different location.8
Yours very truly,
DAN MORALES Attorney General of Texas
JORGE VEGA First Assistant Attorney General
SARAH J. SHIRLEY Chair, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Mary R. Crouter Assistant Attorney General
Article
1 , Section5 of the Texas Constitution provides that the oath required of a witness testifying in any judicial proceeding, civil or criminal, must be taken "subject to the pains and penalties of perjury." There is case law that suggests that since juvenile proceedings are nominally civil, not criminal, a witness who would be subject only to juvenile proceedings for lying under oath might not be a competent witness under that constitutional provision. See Santillian v. State,182 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.Crim.App. 1944). That, in turn, might mean that a juvenile could not testify in any court proceedings. Rather than incur such a catastrophic risk, the Family Code gives the criminal courts concurrent jurisdiction over those offenses in order to leave no doubt that persons of juvenile court age, if otherwise competent witnesses, may testify under the constitutional qualifying provision.
Id. (emphasis in original).
