State Ex Rel. Coats v. Johnson

Oklahoma, ex rel. M. STATE of Andrew

COATS, Attorney, District Seventh District, Petitioner,

Judicial H. Coats, Atty., David M. Dist. Andrew JOHNSON, Special The Honorable Sandra Hardwicke, Atty., Oklahoma Asst. Dist. District, Judge, Judicial District Seventh petitioner. County, for Respondent. Oklahoma, State of Moran, City, for re- John C. Oklahoma No. P-79-50. spondent. Appeals of Court of Criminal Oklahoma. Pearson, Defender, Okla- Public Jim Asst. June County, homa amicus curiae.

OPINION BRETT, Judge: 29,1979, respondent, January On Sev- John- Judge, Sandra enth Judicial District 1104.2 son, declared §§ 1112(b), on grounds (1) deny equal the statutes law; (2) protection that Section constitutionally impermis- 1112(b)creates a 17-year-olds 16 and sible treated of serious crimes should be accused adults; (3) impermissi- that the bly persuasion shift the burden question 17-year-old a 16 or of whether treated crime should be accused adult; (4) that as an vague. unconstitutionally the statutes are 1053.1,the to 22 Pursuant petitioner application filed in this Court original jurisdiction on a reserved to assume question of law.1 light of our not make detailed vagueness, we shall constitutional infirmi- analysis of other a valid the statute has ties raised. That protecting its citizens from interest crimes young people commit violent who penal deny. few would Whether only be 17-year-olds 16 and need (1) Judges grounds the statutes on the The District and Associate District stitutional (2) Judges vague; adopted procedurally that the classifica- of the Seventh Judicial District advisory requiring panel statutes does not bear rule that an tion created statute, judges validity relationship determine the substantial legislation; constitutionality that the statutes rest which is in that raised compe- 28, 1979, regarding February panel invalid District. On judges 17-year-olds appointed of serious of 16 and under that rule declared 10 tence 1112(b), uncon- crimes. §§ 1104.2 329 rationally legitimate related to that years children under 7 incapable State of com- Doud, 457, (Morey interest v. 354 U.S. 77 mitting crimes that children over 7 and 1344, [1957]) 1 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1485 or wheth incapable committing under 14 are еr such a statute must meet the test of crimes in the proof absence of that at the e., strict scrutiny, narrowly i. that it be committing neglect time of or the act protect drawn to a-compelling inter State them, charged against they knew of its est “suspect because are a class” wrongfulness. Nor do we find that (Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Mur amendments a presumption create of a fact 307, gia, 2562, 427 U.S. 96 S.Ct. 49 L.Ed.2d proven which law must be 16 before a [1976]) open is more to debate. 17-year-old can be tried as an adult. We do The case before us youth involves a not point need at this to determine whether whom cause has been implicit somewhere in the United States found that he committed robbery with a requirement Constitution is the that dangerous weapon. Whether the facts purposes prosecution, of criminal shown at the hearing at which the statutes 18, must be treated as a until he is were declared aсtually as both Legisla- sides submit that had prosecutive showed merit charge to the it, simply wished it could have ‍​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‍chosen ture us; not before nor is question of wheth- anyone to define under 16. any er of the other enumerated crimes in Third, respondent ruled that 1112(b) Sections 1104.2 and would meet the to the impermissibly amendments statutes applicable equal protection test. Neverthe- persuasion juve shift the burden of less, applicable, whichever test is rob- that nile quеstion on the of whether he should be bery with dangerous weapon if committed treated as a or as an by an punishable by a maximum argument holding Mullaney based on the sentence imprisonment (21 of life O.S.Supp. Wilbur, 1881, 801), is indicative gravity § (1975), must with society which and the view crime prove every its each and element of a using Even commission. the strict scru- test, tiny beyond Without dis protecting would seem that a reasonable doubt. youthful detail, armed robbers cussing question any would we notе compelling be a state interest. Whether or the later case of Patterson v. New enough are narrowly York, 197, 97 2319, L.Ed.2d drawn is a which we need not (1977), holding in refused to extend the answer. Mullaney to affirmative defenses. The respondent next ruled that Section Finally, respondent ruled that Sec- 1112(b) constitutionally created a impermis- 1112(b) tions 1104.2 and are unconstitution-

sible presumption 17-year-olds that 16 and vague. ruling ally With that we must accused of serious crimes should be treаted agree. it became effective on Octo- Since panel judges adults. The held that 1,1978, ber reverse certification Oklahoma’s the amendment presump- created an invalid interpreted at various statutes have been competence. tion of The amicus curiae and fel- times create concurrent brief stresses that Kent v. United ex- ony jurisdiction, division vest initial division, felony clusive in the and 10 O.S.Supp.1978, § to deter- prosecutor confer discretion on the exception (b), of subsection create a file, mine where to and to create exclusive incompetence to stand trial jurisdiction. There initial division persons under 18. We fail to find that justification is some for each of the four statute, Kent, in the or in interpretations. fact, of our eases. Oklaho- First, 1101(a), did ma statute dealing we can find per- incompetence change “any of child as of children the definition to cоmmit crimes O.S.1971, provides eighteen years.” son under the the 11 enumerated 1112(a), is accused of one of states old Title crimes; are the “Except chil- determine what provided," as hereinafter nor we can juvenile proceedings dren shall be tried of either rights responsibilities That than in criminal actions. this juveniles. For State start proceedings indicate what it thinks would to determine court, and that for the in in order be a acceptable would not prоcedure, an an child to be tried as the but of the statute interpretation of matter court still have to waive legis judicial exercise be an certify and the child. We cannot rewrite the lation. Lingo- pretext of construction. See hand, uses 1104.2 On other Section 5, 17 Carter, 161 Okl. Leeper Lumber Co. “charged,” “preliminary words hear- Therefore, we that hold P.2d 365 ing,” referring and to a “defendant” 1112(b) are and 1104.2 § § 17-year-old charged the 11 of one of effect. void аnd without ordinarily These enumerated crimes. words prosecutions used in criminal are adult ruling uphold We therefore Furthermore, juvenile proceedings. not in writ of respondent to issue a and decline prehearing that that statute indicates a writ or in the alternative mandamus such options detention are not available to prohibition. juveniles. ques- course leaves the That of tion of whether or not the accused CORNISH, J., specially concurs. P. оne of entitled the enumerated crimes is a 10 detention BUSSEY, J., concurs. specially hearing. BUSSEY, concurring: Judge, specially problem Another is 1104.2 that Section certifying refers to as a child “defendant” Respondent’s disagree While I division, whereas Section (1) the holdings in lower 1112(b) certifying refers to a child an deny equal protection provisions issue serving adult. 1104.2 also Section refers 1112(b) im- laws, (2) creates Section copy the child with a “certified of informa- presumption permissible tion,” says and it arrest and certification, regarding provisions detention, 17-year-old a 16 of shall such Judge my colleague, must concur with have all the and constitutional provi- Brett, rights protections of an adult accused 1104.2 and sions of §§ Sections, From those we are crime. uncon- 1112(b), they are for the reason 17- unable to a 16 of determine whether stitutionally vague. year-old of one of 11 enumerat- ed crimes set in should seek have bоnd CORNISH, specially Presiding Judge, juvenile court or in the division of concurring: the District Court. unconstitu- I concur that the statutes are Further, 1112(b) manda- refers to Section thorough But after vagueness. tional for torily certifying a child an adult after hold, I would study presented, of the issues the court cause” “probable has found addition, subject statutes create exists to of one of guilty believe that he ra- having no impermissible the 11 unable enumerated crimes. We are comрe- juvenile’s connection to tional determine whether that is a reference an adult. tency to trial as stand prosecutive during stage of a merit the first hearing or means certification if that those 1978 amendments Prior finding preliminary cause statutes, certification the Oklahoma two hearing. view, complied with Consti- my process, viable requirements provided a glean We tutional cannot from the statutes what determining which procedures required 17-year- procedure if for a 16 of

n were to face prosecution.1 public class crimes and threat safety their was then defined as: “The respective prescribed demonstrated their term ‘child’ any person means under the penalties. apparent leg eighteen (18) years.” Title O.S. islation protection is the Supp.1977, 1101(a). privileges Numerous juveniles accused ‍​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‍of more violent crimes.4 protections were this afforded class suggested Anоther reason including Legislature, including members of the justice individuals in the adult system to stand trial keep separated that it will them from the (10 O.S.Supp.1977, 1112).2 as an adult criminally sophisticated juveniles.5 less Fi

With the 1978 amendments nally, political a subclass there reality high is the was composed created which was of sixteen ly visible community serious offenses evoke seventeen-year-olds who had been outrage punitive or fear that sanc charged with one of elеven enumerated mollify.6 of an adult conviction can crimes. Members of this subclass had a The Juvenile theoretically en- common class, basis of difference from the gaged determining the needs of the child e., age i. severity of the crime. While adjudicating and of than deny Constitution does not to states the criminal conduct. Our spe- Juvenile Code power separate to treat persons classes of cifically general policy articulates this ways, nevertheless, different uphold purpose system. of the The subject constitutional, statutes as that com major premise system is that meas- mon basis of difference must be “reasona guidance regenerative ures of treat- ble, arbitrary, and must rest some postulated ment pro- for children be should ground having of difference a fair and sub juveniles vided legislative- until the reach a stantial object relation to the legisla ly age. determined Whether to transfer a tion, persons so that all similarly circum from the structure of the stanced shall be treated alike.” See Reed v. Juvenile processes Court to the Reed, 71, 76, 251, 254, 404 U.S. 92 30 S.Ct. important critically District Court is a (1971), L.Ed.2d 225 quoting Roy from F. S. accompanied by decision tremendous conse- ster Virginia, 412, Guano Co. v. 253 U.S. quences. 415, 560, 561, 40 S.Ct. 64 L.Ed.2d 989 (1920).3 Implicit in the scheme is that noncriminal

The treatment is to presented be the rule— is whether difference in exception, and offense adult criminal treatment warrants the distinction in accountability governed by to stand trial as which must be a consideration an adult. gravity ‍​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‍The types of these factors in It individual cases.7 States, 541, capable clarifying objectives Kent v. United 383 U.S. als S.Ct. served State, (1966); legislative L.Ed.2d 84 J. T. P. v. its enactments. Okl.Cr., (1975). 544 P.2d 1270 note, 5. See “Youthful Adult Offenders and protections 2. Other afforded the class included: Courts: Prosecutorial Juvenile Discretion v. right private hearing to a under 10 O.S. Rights,” (1973). 121 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1184 Supp.1975, 1111; consideration of release to parents 1107; undеr 10 comment, “Representing 6. See the Juvenile De- admissibility confessions, stricter standard for Proceedings,” fendant in Waiver 12 St. Louis 1109; and detention alter (1968). U.L.J. pursuant natives to 10 § 1108. States, applying 7. Kent v. United 383 U.S. For other S.Ct. cases this standard see: Boren, (1966). accord, Craig 190, 210-211, v. 16 L.Ed.2d 84 In see 451, 463-464, Division, County (1976); State v. Juvenile Tulsa Dis Zablocki Redhail, 673, 688, Court, Okl.Cr., v. trict 560 P.2d 974 (1978). M., Okl.Cr., L.Ed.2d 618 the Matter of G. A. 563 P.2d 161 directly apparent 4. The is not from the Legisla- face of the statute and the Oklahoma preserve statutory history ture does not materi- dеcisions, . our a statuto- “. . Under eliminate seeks to appears to me the State if presumption cannot be sustained ry the instant case this consideration no rational connection between there crime, in direct of a violent mere accusation and the ultimate fact proved fact States, of Kent United contravention the one if inference of presumed, 1045,16 arbitrary be- proof of other is primary benefit afforded between the lack connection cause of statutory age is the below experience. in common two trial as an adult. to stand is so strained where the inference But ‍​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‍1, 1978, had the Prior October to the relation to have a reasonable proof by burden substantial evidence them life as we know circumstances of incompeten- overcome this legislature competent for the is not cy.8 proce- governing the create it as rulе added) (Emphasis dure of courts.” response its Then the supra, Tot v. Applying crimes, public outcry violent bar, connection is the rational what case legislation the benefit enacted this without (age/offense proved basic fact between the empirical of sufficient data extensive (com- fact classification) public hearings being legislation result —the petency)? presumes every court, presented In the trial seventeen-yeаr-old sixteen and Judge testimony of the uncontradicted crimes, one of the enumerated and further Hunter, years M. who for seven Stewart presumes juveniles within the sub- all other Divi- Presiding Judge of was the Juvenile they class act out of when are Oklahoma of the Court of sion District of a offense. nonenumerated his testimony was that from County. His power of the to make juvenile and the experience, age the of the proof of one fact evidence аnother relationship to the no alleged have offense by limited the Fourteenth Amendment. or wrong the ability right know to Supreme The United Court substan- States of a “subclass” amenability to rehabilitation tially defined the constitutional limitations the concluded member. This witness presumptions on the use of in criminal cases is of no crime particular seriousness of a opinions with Tot v. beginning deciding in a series of whether a benefit in or maturity juvenile possesses sufficient for his competency to held accountable be (1943).9 L.Ed. Tot the In Court acts as an adult. a provision struck down of the Federal it Firearms Act which made unlawful for did that the State significant It to note any person crime convicted of violence testimony. Nor does not refute Hunter’s any shipped interstate to receive firearm to appeal to this Court attempt on Further, possession commerce. fire- difference the basis of show that сommon it presumptive “subclass,” arm was evidence that was the the “class” and between offense, Act. received in violation the In has the severity of criminal the relationship the presumption process the due the to necessary violated constitutional incompetency to stand Court said: elimination the presence C., Okl.Cr., provided at the site 8. Matter G. P.2d 908 D. of the convict a defendant was sufficient to distilling carrying on business offense of deаling 9. For two other cases with the constitu- bond, giving ex- the defendant without unless presumptions tional limits the creation of presence plained satisfaction of the his cases, Gainey, see United States v. jury. down struck In Romano principle of the Tot violative Romano, United States v. unexplained illegal possession of an still from Gainey 210 validity 15 L.Ed.2d presence. Court sustained the There, applying the rational connection test. process due cоmport an adult. The between with and is constitu- trial as connection tionally age/offense and tenuous infirm. competency is too arbitrary pass muster. constitutional Having challenged found Furthermore, say it is not too much to unconstitutional, “reverse certification” presumptions created the statutes Legislature might guided enacting be any argu question are inconsistent with legislation concerning ju- future the serious ment drawn from accumulated commоn ex First, venile offender. con- “rational perience. parties brought have discussed, test,” previously be nection must the attention of this Court available legis- evaluating any proposed considered in studies, pertinent reports, compilations or Second, ur- Legislature, lation. in its by governmental nongovern of statistics gency legislation response to enact agencies, courts, associations, mental bar more ac- sophisticаted offender etc., support for evidence to or rebut crimes, recog- violent cused of more must called for From inferences the statutes. nize that the statute must be more than my research from an examination of procedural prosecutors seeking shortcut conducted, studies have been bring to the adult crimi- appears pro the seriousness of an offense justice system. nal enlightenment vides basis or for dis little exclusion, alone, standing Offense tinguishing those who are sus clearly phi- with the rehabilitative odds ceptible likely rehabilitation and losophy of court that the waiv- disposition recidivate from those for whom er division be should is appropriate.10 findings about based on the child rather Legis- compelled findings about the presump- am to conclude than on offense. present lative on the basis of exclusion upheld tions of cannot be with- combined with a serious offense сonsidera- making out incursions into hold- juvenile’s prior is much Tot, ings Gainey, These and Romano. upheld by the federal likely more holdings require that it be determined appellate To maintain the courts. “substantial assurance re- will invite reversals and classification likely fact is more than not to flow from trials of cases in the future. of hundreds proved fact on made which it depend.”11 It cannot be substan- said with age, incorporating an offender’s Statutes (com- tial assurance that the fact offense, juvenile present prior and record petency) likely is more than not flow classification to determine proved (the age/offense from the basic fact my opinion, stand trial an would as classification). Judged by this standard of Tot requirements meet v. United foregoing States, and the analysis, approach appears I would hold the This supra. statutory presumption identifying does not more toward the seri- issuе realistic States, discussion, thorough Leary a v. United For see “Reference of 11. See Juvenile Offenders for Adult Prosecution: The discussed Legislative Unconstitutionality Statutory Asking Alternative to “The of Criminal Unanswera- Questions,” by Barry Feld, (1970). Presumptions,” ble C. 62 Minn.L. 22 Stan.L.Rev. pre- Leary statutory This a Rev. 515 article states held unconstitutional offense, present satisfactorily explained, plus sumption seriousness of a unless exten- record, prior possession provides sive а marihuana was sufficient rational predictive prove had basis for knew the marihuana certification that is more the defendant imported judgment. illegally into the States. accurate than clinical The au- been United proposes empirically thor derived actuarial considering recent decisions For two more matrix, excluding offenders with com- various validity the Due Process Clause under present prior binations of offenses and offenses presumptions see: and inferences criminal law juvenile jurisdiction, court could be States, 398, 90 S.Ct. Turner v. United adopted by legislature, explicitly incorporat- (1970); Barnes v. L.Ed.2d ing prediction the actuarial on which methods L.Ed.2d implicitly rely making the courts amenabili- ty/dangerousness determinations. fenses, against the compared to offenses persistent and could offender

ous person. age the time establish ‍​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‍a minimum precondition for adult

criminal act сould Initially, prosecutor’s decision categories com- (2) create prosecution and or adult court juvenile be determinative offense serious- bining degrees of different Upon consideration jurisdiction. persistence, measures ness with different to be- cause present offense prosecution adult vrould be under juvenile committed lieve the guidelines, these as the Under mandated. ju- prosecutor could consult felony, the increases, present offense seriousness of juve- If the juvenile record. prior venile’s prior required convictions the number offense, prior record present age, nile’s decline. As the seriousness would jurisdic- juvenile court him from excluded decreases, offense the number tion, for then be transferred the case could prior required prosecu- convictions for adult Further, prosecution. adult tion would increase. to transfer provision could be made proba- be de- court where the offense would back to Seriousness legislative of- termined classifications for a lesser ble was found cause penalties. Only fense, persist- offenses com- authorized the seriousness for which prosecution. mini- mitted after attained the adult ence did not mandate the of- among would be counted mum guidelines, Following or similar prior included in the record. At fenses age/offense/prior adoption of an separate least one involvement serious the ration- contribute to could classification necessary misconduct seems warrant dispositional decision-mak- alization youth’s requires act conclusion addition, such a classifica- ing process. disposition. This would have the ef- adult limit on provide a finite outer could distinguishing legislatively fect of between jurisdiction, which length persistent the iso- serious offender and youth and court place both the lated offender. involvement that continued criminal notice Administration The Institute of Judicial prosecution as an eventually lead Association, American Bar Juvenile adult. Project, Relat- Justice Standards Standards specially concur Accordingly, (1977), re- ing to Transfer Between Courts opinion. majority quired prior adjudication of an offense prerequisite as a prosecution: previously “The must have been

adjudicated threatening charges pre- bodily injury. The

inflicting serious juris-

sumption in favor of strong. Only who diction is NEAL, Appellant, Hoyle Herman genuine community safety pose threats exposed to should be waived Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of court. greater sanctions of the criminal prior A acts is evidence of violent No. F-78-303. added) (Emphasis threat.” Appeals of Oklahoma. of Criminal might incorporated This recommendation June prior proposed legislation requiring a adjudication offense or set number July As Corrected prior felony adjudications coupled with a serious offense against prosecution. Any statutes warrant adult lesser of- attempt

enacted could balance

Case Details

Case Name: State Ex Rel. Coats v. Johnson

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Jun 21, 1979

Citation: 597 P.2d 328

Docket Number: P-79-50

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.