*1 24, 1987.] September En 53189-7. Banc. [No. Respondent, Timothy Washington, The v. State of Appellant. Schaaf, Leland Respondent, Washington, Matthew Appellant. Webb, Gunner Respondent, Washington, The State of v. Eddie Appellant. Loney, Edward Respondent, Washington, The State of v. Mark Appellant. A. McNeely, Respondent, Washington, The State of v. Trevor Appellant. Dixon, Andrew Respondent, Washington, The State of v. Scott Appellant. C. Bolton, *2 Engelhard, Neil M. Sarkanen, Scott J. Anna-Mari Washington Appellate Association; Janet Fox of Defender Seattle-King County Asso- Public Ainsworth of Defender appellants. ciation, for Greg Prosecuting Attorney, Maleng, Hubbard,
Norm Deputy, Deputy, Tweten, Jeanne E. Assistant Chief respondent. J.— Andersen, Introduction to this court. issue in this case is not a new one
The main extensively previous opinions, dis In at least two we have offenders cussed the issue and have concluded *3 Lawley, jury See State v. need not be afforded trials. (1979); Hopp, Wn.2d Wn.2d Estes (1968). Appellants 263, 438 now raise the same P.2d light. issue, in but a somewhat different more than strenuously pages appellants briefs, in the six this case argue developments grant in that recent the law mandate ing juvenile jury offenders trials. by recognize importance right
While we of the to trial jury, recognize life, we also the realities of and the enor- impact jury trials would have on the mous system, pres- justice system. question We as whether begin ently jury in structured, trials could even to absorb legal restructuring of the entire cases without a system. practical aware, however, that such are also well
We us. It is not determinative of the issue before realities are obligation and federal consti- to see to it that the state our complied appellants with, are and that tutions rights full under the law. Because accorded their importance issue this offenders as well as appropriate state, we deem it to deal with the numerous arguments appellants raised in some detail.
Facts of Case charged six defendants herein were tried juveniles. Timothy Schaaf and Matthew Webb were charged Loney robbery liberties, with indecent Eddie with degree, McNeely kidnapping in the first Mark in with possession degree property second stolen the sec- degree and ond Trevor Dixon with theft the second degree. charged liquor, possessing Scott Bolton was with violating Uniform Controlled Substances Act and sim- ple charge factfinding assault; first was dismissed at the hearing. juveniles pretrial Two of the filed motions requesting jury trials. The trial court denied the motions. presented behalf;
Each evidence on his own each guilty charged. was found of the offenses All six appealed, claiming they were entitled to a appeals the state and federal constitutions.1 The six accepted were consolidated and this court certification from Appeals.2 the Court of
Issues developments Issue One. Do recent in Washington law require granting juvenile right offenders the to a trial? denying juveniles
Issue Two. Does equal protection provisions trial violate the of the state and federal constitutions?
Decision Issue One. proceedings Juvenile remain rehabilitative
Conclusion. distinguishable prosecu- nature from adult criminal by jury Thus, tions. no to trial attaches. *4 2.5(a).
1See RAP 2.06.030(d).
2RCW Constitution to the United States sixth amendment the accused provides prosecutions, that all criminal "[i]n trial, by an public to a enjoy speedy shall ours.) 1, (Italics sec- impartial Similarly, article jury ..." provides that tion 22 of the Constitution Washington State shall have the prosecutions the accused "[i]n ..." ... impartial jury a an speedy public have (Italics ours.) declined previously have Legislature
This court and the prosecutions as criminal proceedings to recognize juvenile a 1968, In we rejected that an trial. jury entitle accused 13.04.030, then denied RCW which to former challenge In that juvenile jury ruling juveniles offenders a trial.3 out that protections, pointed deserve basic due we process not held that those Supreme United States Court has protections We concluded that while include a trial.4 comply "rules of fairness juvenile had with proceedings possible was rights", compliance basic such procedural of the substantial formality without trial. "One informal hear- process private, benefits of the presence of a ing jury."5 conducted outside the 13.04.021(2), pro- upheld Then in 1979 RCW which we shall be tried without vides court cases Jus- the Juvenile Lawley, charged that jury.6 appellants In from (JJA) law's had so altered the focus tice Act of 1977 punishing them rehabilitating treating A prosecutions. had become criminal proceedings States and cited the United disagreed, of the court majority trials Court's conclusion Supreme (1968). Hopp, 3See P.2d 205 Estes 73 Wn.2d Gault, 4Estes, 266-67, Ct. re citing Ed. 2d S. U.S. 18 L. 5Estes, Lawley,
6State v. *5 a are not constitutional requirement.7 While the JJA wid- ened the juvenile system's earlier focus a juvenile's on indi- vidual and problems needs to include his her prior or activity, criminal the act not make juvenile did proceedings like an adult criminal prosecution so was that tried constitutionally required.8 however, claim,
Defendants now develop- that recent in Washington ments law subject juveniles do to criminal They prosecution. argue juveniles now accused therefore, and, and held accountable for criminal behavior Mace, be should entitled to trials under Pasco v. (1982), 653 P.2d Wn.2d which held that "[a]s carry for stigma those offenses which criminal and partic- ularly a possible those for which term of is imprisonment prescribed, the constitution requires that a be jury trial unless As support claim, afforded waived." for their point defendants first to several sections JJA. 13.40.020(11) RCW defines "juvenile any offender" as by juvenile juvenile found court to have committed an An offense. offense "an designated act a violation or a committed crime if an adult under the law of this state ours.)9 (Italics . Furthermore, . ." two of the JJA's pur- " poses are to the juvenile offender for accountable [m]ake " his or her criminal behavior to "[pjrovide for pun- crime, age, ishment commensurate with the and criminal (Italics ours.)10 offender". history The Law- ley acknowledged purposes these as new majority placing a behavior,11 emphasis juvenile's on a but defend- emphasis ants believe that this merits closer scrutiny Lawley, Pennsylvania, citing 7See McKeiver 403 U.S. 91 Ct. L. Ed. 2d S.
8Lawley, at 659. 13.40.020(15) (part).
9RCW 13.40.010(2)(c), (d).
10RCW
11Lawley, at 656. for juvenile accountability cases stressing of recent
light such behavior. cases, Thir- argued a defendant of those one involuntary slavery or servi- prohibits Amendment
teenth crime, that a except punishment tude or commu- not be sentenced restitution therefore could are not crimes.12 The service because offenses nity there no Appeals noted while Court law proceedings, guarantees many process adults. rights same due "Given *6 system, with the adult criminal we justice these similarities did juvenile disposition that order constitute hold for crime' sufficient to fall within the constitu- 'punishment exception involuntary to servitude."13 tional similarly found accountable juveniles This Bird, in State v. 83, 95 Wn.2d 622 criminal behavior P.2d 9.92.060, (1980). At issue was RCW which whether sentence, authority suspend courts the grants to argued to The juveniles. State statute applies crime, only to those of a and that juve- convicted applies a crime.14 A the court majority nile offense not found to sufficiently analogous offenses to crimes allow juvenile to sentences under RCW 9.92- suspend juvenile trial courts support, majority pointed As Court of .060. compromise of misdemeanors Appeals holding as statute, 10.22, applies RCW offenses well juvenile misdemeanors.15 adult for criminal
The fact
are accountable
does not erase the differences between adult and
behavior
The
rather than
crimi-
juvenile accountability.
penalty,
committed,
juve-
is the
that distinguishes
nal act
factor
Erickson,
808,
(1979).
App.
12In re
14State v. 95 Wn.2d 15Bird, Norton, App. citing P.2d 714 25 Wn. nile code from the adult criminal justice system.16 Under code, the a court order adjudging a child delin- quent dependent or "shall no case be deemed a convic- tion of crime."17 We have interpreted this provision to " mean that a juvenile cannot be felony. convicted of a [A] has not crime, committed a including felony, offense, when he has committed an 'an act designated as a committed an adult.'"18 crime if Important distinctions result from being accused and convicted of a crime as opposed to an offense. A juvenile may eligible be for a diversion agreement lieu of prose- cution, prosecuted and if and found will guilty normally be sent to a juvenile facility.19 Indeed, detention purpose of the juvenile system provide is to an alternative to incar- ceration adult correctional facilities.20 As the Court of has Appeals stated:
Although juveniles will be held accountable for their behavior, juvenile courts are vested with powers broad treatment, provide any necessary guidance, or rehabilita- tion for offenders. procedures are not as punitive as are adult criminal proceedings. Holland,
State v. 30 Wn. App. P.2d (1981), aff'd, short, present under the state the law no amount of analogizing between adult offenders serves to make the *7 equally two classes accountable for their criminal actions. point The second raised to show that juveniles are sub- ject prosecution justice system's punishment. new focus on recently We observed that juvenile system is somewhat akin to a criminal Bird, (Dolliver, J., dissenting).
16See at 91
17RCW 13.04.240. Frederick, 28, 30, (1980).
18In re 93 Wn.2d 13.40.080; 19RCW ROW 13.04.116. Foltz, 554, 558, (1980). App.
20State v. 27 Wn. 619 P.2d 702 thus Juveniles punishment.21 on emphasis its because 9A.04.050. in RCW defense infancy to use are entitled be avail- defense, should RCW 9A.04.050 a criminal "Being in nature."22 that are criminal proceedings to juvenile able system also to a criminal similarity system's treatment. One guarantee failure to by its shown allegedly " policy for a clear [p]rovide is to purposes JJA's punish- receive shall types of offenders what determine point ."23 Defendants treatment, both, . . or ment, Disposi- State Juvenile Washington by the report produced this statu- elaborates on Commission Standards tion such statements They charge tory provision.24 " system should be juvenile justice and the community [t]he in its pun- and consistent being for fair held accountable preoccupa- JJA's show the offenders" youthful ishment point also out Defendants punishment.25 tion with monetary penalty pay must now offenders 7.68.035(7) act.26 compensation victims of the crime RCW new showing evidence piece of important The most however, possibility is the punishment, on emphasis of Cor- Department to the offender transferring and adult incarceration.27 rections P.2d 771 Wn.2d Lawley, In State v. similar argu court considered (1979), of this majority JJA, the enacting Legisla concluded that ments and punishment merely mandate done more than ture had Q.D., 19, 23, 21State
22Q.D., at 23. 13.40.010(2)(j) (part).
23RCW Comm'n, Washington Disposition 24Washington Standards Juvenile 1984). Philosophy Disposition (July and Guide Standards State Juvenile Standards, Disposition 25Juvenile Sargent, App.
26State v. 674 P.2d Wn.
27RCW 13.40.280. *8 offender.28 we that "it would juvenile Recently agreed the new has turned legislation be a mistake to assume that rehabilitating ideal of completely from the JJA are more purposes policies and of offenders."29 system, of adult criminal justice than those complex 1981.30 The Sentencing Reform Act of expressed by the system are twofold: to establish a of of the JJA policies for, for, accountable responsibility being having primary offenders; and to youthful needs of responding to the and Nowhere accountable for their offenses.31 hold responding system policy is there a the adult criminal Rather, them. rehabilitating offenders or of the needs of of the adult sen- purpose paramount is the punishment tencing system.32 system with the adult
Thus, while the JJA shares acts, for his a child accountable rendering purposes him, from such him retribution exacting punishing must by, give some cases tempered purposes way to the needs of the to, responding purposes the reha- utterly . . . the JJA has not abandoned child. justice impelled ideal which bilitative for decades. It does not or ret- purely punitive embrace a an Instead, attempts it to tread philosophy. ributive midway poles between the line somewhere equatorial and retribution. rehabilitation (1982). 384, 393, Rice, v. 98 Wn.2d consti- juvenile proceedings
Defendants also claim that use of possible because of the prosecutions tute criminal (1) send a to adult convictions prior juvenile (2) a defendant's sen- to increase prosecution court for may is true that a in adult court. It tence 654, 657, Lawley, v. 28State Wn.2d Rice, 655 P.2d
29State
30Rice, at 392.
31Rice, at 392.
32Rice, at 392-93. to waive juvenile's deciding record whether
consider
be considered
Several other factors also must
jurisdiction.33
*9
during
hearing,
including
a decline
the seriousness of the
offense,
the offense was committed in an
alleged
whether
violent,
manner,
premeditated
or willful
aggressive,
or
against persons
property,
the offense was
the
whether
desirability
merit of the
of trial
complaint,
prosecutive
court,
the entire offense
one
disposition
and
maturity
pros-
and the
sophistication
juvenile,
public
rehabilitating
pects
protecting
jurisdiction
Once a
court declines
over a
juvenile.34
juvenile
may
or
never
be tried
juvenile,
again
juvenile
he
she
clear, however,
It is
that a decision to waive juve-
court.35
is
made
and occurs
jurisdiction
lightly,
only
nile court
not
with an
offense.
juvenile
charged
egregious
when a
considered
may
Juvenile offenses also
be
an adult
sentencing
purposes.
court
for
Under
sentencing
1981, juvenile
Reform Act of
convictions are included in a
(1)
if
history
juvenile
defendant's criminal
offense was a
(2) the defendant was 15 or older
felony;
when the
(3)
committed;
respect
prior
offense was
with
juve-
felonies,
B
nile class
and C
the defendant was less than 23
when the adult offense was committed.36 The "offender
juvenile felony
score" statute shows that
convictions meet-
these criteria are used to enhance adult
ing
sentences.37
argues
The State
the SRA definition of criminal
narrow,
history
applied
offenses is
while
people
defendants
contend that most
arrested for serious
Holland,
(1983); Foltz,
507, 515-16,
v.
33State
98 Wn.2d
13.40.020(10). 9.94A.030(8)(b). 36RCW
37See RCW 9.94A.360. years age.38 from 16 to 23 It cannot be crimes are denied, however, sentencing that use of offenses the act is more limited under the SRA than before purposes its statement qualify This court did not passed.39 was in sen- may consider arrest records judge Dainard, in State v. tencing hearings (1975).40 defendants, another element of the criminal According to procedural level of or judicial definition prosecution amend- They argue an accused faces. that recent formality 13.40.140(8) juvenile pro- RCW have made the ments to In prosecution. much like a formal adult ceeding specify juvenile's right added that a wording Legislature an adult's right. self-incrimination is the same as against addition, in juvenile seized evidence is inadmissible illegally "if be inadmissible an adult the evidence would *10 a state- proceeding”, juvenile's extrajudicial and criminal of unless evi- support finding guilt is insufficient ment is established "in the same manner corpus of a delicti dence proceeding."41 in an adult criminal required informal, discretionary that once system While the in has been modified substan- juvenile proceedings existed flexibility informality persists of and tially, degree some automatically are fin- proceedings. Juveniles not photographed.42 agreements and Diversion are gerprinted prosecution.43 Mitigating in lieu of factors are to possible 38Petersilia, Proceedings: Survey A Juvenile Record Use in Adult Criminal (1981). Prosecutors, Criminology L. & 1746 72 J. Crim. (1975); Dainard, 624, 628, v. Her P.2d 760 39See State v. 85 Wn.2d 537 nandez, 225, 228, App. P.2d 157 20 Wn. 581 (1981), aff'd, Holland, App. also State v. 30 Wn. 40See 507, 98 Wn.2d 299, 11(8), 1981, p. 41See Laws of ch. 1350. § 42RCW 13.04.130. 13.40.080(1).
43RCW
are
Limitations
hearings.44
disposition
be considered
time
length
records and
of juvenile
the use
placed on
are accorded
juveniles
Though
public.45
be made
they will
sus-
adult
rights granted
procedural
many of
adult
not
so resemble
yet
do
proceedings
pects,
required.
trial is
jury
proceedings
Washington
cases
is that
argument
final
Defendants'
state con-
interpreted the
Lawley have
broadly
more
after
Supreme
United States
trial. The
jury
stitutional
trials
require jury
declined
Court
Pennsylvania,
403 U.S.
McKeiver
constitution
federal
(1971),
but added
647,
In State v. several criteria to be (1986), recently enumerated we extends our state constitution determining whether used the federal consti citizens than does rights to our broader tution. language textual of the first consideration is the 1, section In addition to article
state constitution.47 arti- prosecutions, in criminal guarantees which pro- State Constitution Washington section cle shall remain inviolate". "right of trial vides The second Gunwall criterion comparison is a federal of the state parallel provisions texts article sec- The Sixth Amendment constitutions.48 article, 1, 21 has no section comparable, but tion *11 13.40.150(3)(h). 44RCW
45RCW 13.50.050. 647, 528, 547, Pennsylvania, L. 2d 91 S. Ct. 29 Ed. 46McKeiver 403 U.S. (1971). 1976 47 (1986). Gunwall, P.2d 808 State v. Wn.2d 720 106 48Gunwall, at 65.
14 1, sec- contend that article Defendants counterpart. federal by the framers expression 21 be read as an tion should than the federal trial is broader right jury state to a Pasco, where interpreted was so provision right. trial require jury petty held that criminal offenses court constitution, there is no such though even the state constitution.49 under the federal requirement Gunwall consideration is the state constitu- The next at provisions to the history relating law and common tional 1, pre- section has said that article This court issue.50 at com- as that existed serves adopted.51 was territory in the when section mon law thereon, guarantees claim that section defendants Based with criminal acts charged trials since them trial at the time this guaranteed have been would territory.52 state was however, the salient fact overlooks
This latter argument, not the enactment anticipate lawmakers did territorial did not system. Washington separate juvenile justice of a 1905, and did system until separate juvenile create a concerning comprehensive legislation pass not our does no violence to until 1913.53 It justice 70-year- credence to a history give law state's common nonexistent our territorial that was legal system old days. in consider- 70-year history
Indeed, note of that we take Gunwall criterion: state law.54 preexisting the next ing (1982). Mace, 95-97, 87, Pasco v. 49See 98 Wn.2d 50Gunwall, at 66. Firchau, Marriage 51Pasco, 96; In re 1881, ch.
52See Code of 1078. § Introduction, 53Becker, Washington An Code: Gonz. State's New Juvenile L. Rev. 54Gunwall,
15
observed that
to
this court has
reference
section
of
in the constitution
concept
the
embodied
in
of the
it
the laws
light
enacted as was
Washington,
time, no
be deemed
that
offense can
territory existing at
a
constitutes
it
a
denying
to
so
as
warrant
petty
if
crime.
ours.)
Mace, Wn.2d
(Italics
99,
For more than 70 this of crimes. While the juveniles and accusing convicting avoid on a emphasis more placed Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 counterpart, activity did its 1913 criminal than juvenile's "may as Lawley emphasis this new we observed [do] an rehabilitate, youth and direct errant much to correct upon particular the prior philosophy focusing does though Even juvenile."55 of the individual characteristics dealing juve- with changed methods Legislature offenders, thereby juvenile proceed- it did not convert nile atmosphere totally comparable a ings "into criminal offense an criminal offense scenario."56 We reiterated adult from the ideal of reha- completely has not turned JJA Rice, in State v. 98 Wn.2d offenders bilitating juvenile (1982). legislation clearly "The does not new every mirrors rigidly punitive system set which up interpret To respect justice system."57 the adult overlooking as defendants wish would mean section attempts justice of the juvenile these statements adult system distinguish juvenile offenders from their implicit sugges- not counterparts. impressed We are territo- regress the state of should Washington tion that adopt where are treated days rial protections. special like criminals are afforded no adult fifth Gunwall difference factor the structural 656-57, Lawley, 55State v. 91 Wn.2d P.2d 56Lawley, Rice,
57State v. between the federal and state constitutions.58 The federal constitution is grant powers, of limited while the state plenary power constitution limits the otherwise state.59 Defendants argue explicit affirmation of rights Washington Constitution should be seen as a those guaranty rights.60 so, Even this to be it assuming does not 21 applies follow that section to juvenile proceed- *13 ings.
The final criterion in assessing whether broader state rights granted should be is whether a matter is of state interest or local concern.61 There is no need for national issue, uniformity Supreme on this as the United States Court has made clear.62 matter,
After full consideration of all of the aspects raised, new and previously we conclude that we should remain with the majority deny jury states trials which cases.63 Our examination of the Gunwall factors leaves us convinced that offenders are not entitled particu to trials under our state constitution. This is larly respect factor, true with to the state law preexisting statutory long standing and the insistence of that there be a system in with unique juvenile justice Weighed this state. long-standing precedent our consideration of this is our previous govern discussion of the current state of the law offenders, ing juvenile juvenile proceedings under which still distinguishable prosecution, from adult criminal both in terms of and result. We conclude that procedure necessary fully protect trials are not to offender's 58Gunwall, at 66.
59Gunwall, at 66-67. Gunwall,
60See at 62.
61Gunwall, at 67.
62McKeiver, McKeiver,
63See at 548-49.
rights.
Issue Two. in juve- trials statutory The denial of
Conclusion. rationally to the State's related proceedings nile justice juvenile justice unique nature to maintain desire system. Fourteenth equal protection clauses Const, require art. Washington
Amendment § legiti to the similarly respect situated with "'persons Tradi like treatment.'"64 the law receive purpose mate whether used to determine tionally, two tests have been Under the has been violated. to treatment equal this minimal test, subjected relationship a law rational "'unless it rests on upheld grounds be scrutiny and will state legitimate of a the achievement wholly irrelevant test, may be scrutiny strict a law Under objective.'"65 accomplish if necessary it is shown to be only upheld scrutiny strict test is used interest.66 The compelling state affects discriminatory statutory classification allegedly if an Both the right.67 or a fundamental United class suspect recognized a Court and this court have Supreme States *14 in limited circumstances. Under the apply third test to test, law must be scrutiny" challenged "intermediate state.68 The a substantial interest of the furthering seen as gender- this test where typically applies Court Supreme Phelan, 512, (1983), quoting Harmon 508, v. 64State 671 McNutt, (1978). 126, 130, v. 91 Wn.2d Ass'n, 65Phelan, Washington Bar 90 Wn.2d 512, v. Nielsen quoting at (1978). 1191 585 P.2d 399; Nielsen, 66Rice, at at 820. Rice,
67Phelan, 512; at at 399. Doe, 786, 68Phelan, 217-18, 512; Plyler L. Ed. 2d 102 S. 457 U.S. at Ct. 2382 based classifications are at issue.69 This applied heightened scrutiny test when a classification affected both (the important right liberty) an to right semi-suspect (the class not accountable for poor).70 its status Defendants argue test, the strict scrutiny or very test, the heightened scrutiny least applies They here. 13.04.021(2)71 claim scrutiny that close appro- RCW because are priate similar suspect class, fundamental, because jury trial protects because a a juvenile's physical liberty.
Suspect typically classifications are those based on race, alienage or origin.72 national Defendants charge that juveniles are a semi-suspect they politi class because cally powerless and vulnerable to mistreatment society. In a opinion, recent Justice Marshall discussed the merits of such charge: single
No talisman can define groups those likely be target classifications offensive to the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore warranting heightened or . . scrutiny; strict . The "political powerlessness of a may relevant, group be factor but that is neither neces- sary, demonstrate, the gender sufficient, as cases nor example of minors illustrates. Minors cannot vote and thus be might politically powerless considered to an degree. Nonetheless, extreme we see few statutes reflect- ing prejudice minors, or indifference to and I am not any aware suggestion legislation affecting them be with suspicion viewed . . heightened scrutiny. . . . . against Statutes discriminating have young not been do nor common need be feared because those who and legislate
vote were once themselves young, typi- Ctr., Living 440-41, 69Cleburne v. Cleburne U.S. 87 L. Ed. 2d S. Ct. Phelan, 70See *15 jury." "Cases in the court shall be tried without a RCW 13.04-
.021(2).
72Cleburne,
19 own, interact certainly their cally children of have means integration minors. Their social with regularly minorities, tend minors, and insular unlike discrete that full concern and arenas with legislative to be treated from exclusion complete their formal and respect, despite process. the electoral Living Ctr., 473 Cleburne omitted.) Cleburne v.
(Citations (1985) n.24, 313, Ct. 3249 432, L. Ed. 2d 105 S. 472 87 U.S. part). Com- J., part, dissenting (Marshall, concurring of the plurality these are those with statements bined in Cleburne flatly that classifica- opinion stating age-based addition, In scrutiny.73 heightened tions do not warrant test, middle-tier it stated adopted this court before did juveniles differential treatment of Legislature's that these suspect reasoning on the of not create a class.74Based suspect neither form a opinions, we conclude equal protection purposes. for semi-suspect nor class however, scrutiny when state laws applies, Strict also protected Constitution.75 personal rights by the impinge on trial, and the charge right jury Defendants protects, rights. trial are fundamental right liberty importance This court has stressed state, history the earliest this jury: "[f]rom . . ."76The United States by jury trial has been treasured Supreme general grant Court declared that "a in Duncan v. right" is a fundamental serious offenses Louisiana, 157-58, 491, L. S. Ct. U.S. Ed. 2d 88 denied, reh'g 947, 20 2d 88 S. 392 U.S. L. Ed. Pennsylvania, McKeiver v. U.S. Ct. 2270 (1971), however, 2d S. 528, 29 L. Ed. Ct. say sys- in our legal noted that "one Court also cannot necessary accurate factfind- component tem the 73Cleburne, 441. at
74Rice, at 399.
75Cleburne, 440. Mace, 76Pasco v. 653 P.2d *16 20 Duncan
ing."77
opinion
The
Court observed that even the
"
every
stated that
. . .
would not assert
[w]e
any
alone is
particular
judge
trial —or
trial —held before a
by
may
fairly
unfair or that a
never be as
treated
defendant
judge
jury."78
Supreme
a
as he would be
a
The
Court
cast further doubt on
a
trial is a fundamental
whether
Baird,
Bellotti
juveniles
622,
for
in
61 L.
right
443 U.S.
denied,
reh'g
797,
3035,
887,
444
L.
Ed. 2d
99 S. Ct.
U.S.
62
121,
(1979). There,
2d
on the indistinguishable of children are from those of rights Indeed, our acceptance adults. courts distinct from the adult criminal assumes justice constitutionally may treated differ- offenders be ently from adults.
Bellotti,
More
Court noted
recently,
Supreme
protections
enjoyed by
basic constitutional
that certain
apply
juveniles.80
of crimes also
adults accused
McKeiver,
in adding that "the Consti-
though,
Court cited
tution does not mandate elimination of all differences
77
Pennsylvania,
528, 543,
647,
McKeiver v.
29 L. Ed. 2d
91
Ct.
403 U.S.
S.
(1971).
1976
78McKeiver,
Louisiana,
145, 158,
543,
citing Duncan v.
391 U.S.
20 L. Ed.
denied,
reh'g
491,
1444,
947,
1412,
L.
2d
88 S. Ct.
392 U.S.
20
Ed. 2d
88 S. Ct.
(1968).
2270
Baird,
reh'g
797,
3035,
622, 634,
79Bellotti v.
L.
99 S. Ct.
443 U.S.
61
Ed. 2d
denied,
L. Ed. 2d
We right, is not a fundamental tionally and thus guaranteed, impact a trial's standpoint. Whether juvenile's from potentially separate to create liberty on sufficient applied issue. This court fundamental another could scrutiny determining whether test strict for allowed adults than the maximum longer confined be directly juvenile's affected because the issue Phelan, In State v. P.2d liberty.82 if (1983), credit scrutiny applied because heightened denied, be prisoner would jail time were presentence *17 liberty.83 physical deprived link and
Here, juveniles trials denying the between Some tried depriving liberty juveniles them of less direct. some will guilty, a court will be found juvenile judge before in a guilt jury might finding not. Whether a reverse in We case cannot be determined the abstract. particular test where scrutiny to the apply heightened deem it unwise in directly implicate physical question the statute does not liberty. 13.04.021(2) suspect neither class
Since RCW affects validity must its nor a fundamental we examine right, relationship support test. find to the rational We according Cleburne plurality opinion, for such an examination the which declared that: have by affected a law group
where individuals the to relevant interests distinguishing characteristics have implement, the courts authority State has the to sys- reluctant, they be our federal very been should to powers, respect separation tem with our for the and how, whether, as to choices closely legislative scrutinize 81Schall, 263. at Rice,
82State Wn.2d
83Phelan, In pursued. and to what extent those interests should be cases, only such Equal requires Protection Clause rational means to serve a end. legitimate Cleburne, 441-42.
We conclude that denial of Legislature's statutory rationally trials to related to its desire unique some of the of the court preserve aspects system. distinguishing Juveniles do have characteristics— vulnerability to interests the state has age —relevant authority treating implement rehabilitating —and — are ration- unique system features court ally furthering Leg- related those interests. system could have abandoned the islature to, in It chose instead to restructure altogether. view, community serve and the its better the needs of the informality while the features of retaining attention. individualized example important
The absence of a trial remains an unique proceedings. rehabilitative nature of juvenile As as the does not offend basic constitu- long Legislature to chal- guaranties, appropriate tional we do not consider it uniqueness. the means which it such lenge preserves nonjury juven- Since we cannot conclude that (RCW 13.04.021(2)) wholly "rests on grounds iles statute objec- irrelevant to the achievement of a state legitimate tive", conclude that is not in violation of either state we it *18 equal protection guaranties. or federal sum, to adult juvenile proceedings In while are similar jus- still exist to prosecutions, enough criminal distinctions by trial tify denying juvenile right jury. offenders the to a special protections are afforded Juvenile offenders no valid reason to present system, perceive the and we proceed- protections by making juvenile those jeopardize to we there- fully proceedings. Accordingly, akin adult ings 13.04.021(2) constitutionality fore the of RCW uphold " in the court shall be provides [cjases juvenile which that a jury." tried without
Affirmed. C.J., Utter, Dolliver, Brachtenbach, Cal-
Pearson, Tern., JJ., J. Pro con- Durham, Cunningham, low, cur. issue, important whether J. (dissenting) —An
Goodloe, trial, again to a is once are entitled juvenile offenders this court again, majority court. And once before this no to attaches concludes that to impossible I find this conclusion proceedings. comparison accept. open-minded An indicates proceed- akin to have become adult criminal proceedings the courts of this State have so far ings; Legislature the departed juvenile justice from a "rehabilitative" model of justice as to differences from adult criminal too any render withholding minor the the trial. justify to Therefore, I must dissent. Hugh I insightful
To turn to Justice Rosellini's begin, State v. Lawley, 591 P.2d dissent was I will (1979), in which the same issue addressed. not arguments, except quote all of Justice Rosellini's to restate as follows: Court provisions Juvenile the leg- these [Basic Act] made it is longer primary has it clear no
islature to system aim the of attend to the justice welfare child, offending but rather render him account- him, acts, punish society's for his and to serve able demand scribed punishment pre- for retribution. While the upon well be less than may imposed offend- offense, it for the same nevertheless involves adults ing loss of liberty. No respondent longer the case of public's scrutiny from his protected the child (RCW 13.04.270(l)(a)). Furthermore, "criminal" record concerning offenses are made hearings pre- 13.40.140(6)). (RCW public sumptively geared fit punishment is the the needs of longer No child, related to seriousness of rather it is is made consecutive sentences offense. Provision 13.40.180) (RCW community and even service intended (RCW 13.40.020(2)). Thus, has as punishment *19 24 was ostensibly from which was or converted one
been the child to one and rehabilitate protect to designed act society. present The protect is designed which by are served purposes generally the which upon focuses criminal law. adult (Rosellini, J., Justice Rosellini dissenting).
Lawley, at 662 13.04.021(2), should hold RCW that the court concluded tried court cases shall be provides which juve- because it denies the unconstitutional jury, without a every belongs have declared people which the right nile a J., (Rosellini, Subse- dissenting). at 667 Lawley, accused. the persuade in law me that the developments quent in to conclude continuing errs majority trial. jury not entitled to a provide: art.
Const. §§ inviolate, but shall remain by jury right trial of less any for a of number may provide jury legislature the record, by and for a verdict in courts not of twelve than nine or record, any in of in civil cases more jurors in con- civil cases where the waiving and for is given interested thereto. parties sent of the accused shall have prosecutions In criminal public by impartial a trial an speedy ... to have right . . county in which the offense is . charged jury mine.) Mace, In Pasco v. P.2d (Italics Wn.2d (1982), right we held that our state constitutional pro- more extensive than "that which was by jury was trial adopted the federal constitution when it was tected holding Pasco, renege 99. We should not on this at 1789." case. present in the municipal
Pasco involved court stated: A unanimous courts. state, history of this of trial
From the earliest treasured, pro- and this right has been has been by jury . . . It is our jurisdiction. of limited courts tected even in the con- that, concept under the embodied conclusion enacted as it was in Washington, light stitution time, at no offense can territory existing laws of be constitutes if it denying as to warrant a petty so deemed crime. concluded: Pasco, 99. The court carry stigma which those As offenses for possible which term those particularly *20 requires the constitution prescribed, imprisonment unless waived. trial be afforded mine.) Pasco, (Footnote at Italics 100. omitted. carry offenses often a criminal juvenile present,
At
in
three recent decisions is
nec-
import
The
stigma.
offenses will be held to constitute
essary
juvenile
situations
Erickson,
App.
re
Wn.
604 P.2d
In In
crimes.
denied,
(1980),
Finally, juvenile defense to (1984), infancy applied we held that We stated: adjudications. years in recent has evolved
The juvenile justice
one more
scheme to
akin
adult
parens patriae
from
Court
Supreme
United States
proceedings.
criminal
parens patriae
failing
scheme as
critical of
has been
to
while
defendant,
due
adult criminal
an
provide safeguards
stigma,
defendant
to similar
subjecting
1,
Gault,
In re
liberty. See
387 U.S.
loss of
possible
(1966);
Winship,
In re
527,
2d
Q.D., These post-Lawley 23. decisions indicate juvenile offenses are analogous they to crimes. Since crimes, treated as the constitutional provided proceedings. should be Moreover, real very possibility now exists that a juvenile may term imprisonment following serve a conviction a juvenile Lawley, at 657 offense. Cf. ("Commitment of a to an still institution is limited facilities"). to juvenile Pursuant passed to a statute 13.40.280, RCW in certain situations a juvenile may be to the Department transferred of Corrections under JJA. See Laws of ch. 22. This statute does not § pertain Therefore, tried adult. to the as an the juvenile "justice" system a juvenile may offender find placed himself herself adult or incarceration without ever *21 having Pasco, been afforded the trial. See at 100. of bypass The a fundamental in constitutional this is not egregious manner should be condoned.
I find do not the forth arguments by set the majority The convincing. argues juvenile that majority offense is and, therefore, not a "crime" a juvenile cannot be convicted of a "felony". Majority opinion, Nevertheless, at 8. juvenile often as Moreover, offenses are treated crimes. the majority acknowledges prior juvenile conviction, that a if the juve- felony, nile was a is in offense included an adult defend- history under the Sentencing ant's criminal Reform Act of (SRA). 11; opinion, Majority see RCW 9.94A- .030(8) SRA (b), .360. These statutes clearly express the juvenile intent that offenses as Legislature's may be treated 9.94A.360(1) Indeed, former RCW of speaks felonies. "juve- felony nile convictions". argues juvenile also are proceedings
The majority
proceedings
unlike
criminal
because of the former's
adult
flexibility
informality. Majority
opinion,
greater
offered
However,
distinctions
the
fail to
majority
the
example,
in
scrutiny.
juvenile disposition
For
as
withstand
in
may
be considered
factors
likewise
mitigating
hearings,
9.94A.120(2),
SRA. See RCW
sentencing
adult
the
Additionally,
agreements
diversion
are
just
pretrial
.390.
similar alternatives
possible
juvenile prosecution,
lieu
See, e.g.,
are
in adult cases.
RCW
prosecution
available
(deferred
limited
prosecution
jurisdic-
courts of
10.05
tion).
provides
particular
interest
is
RCW 10.05
for
Of
appropri-
on
an
prosecution
participation
deferred
based
obviously
plan.
ate
This
evinces a rehabilitative
treatment
despite
adult criminal
the
aspect
justice system
to the
contrary.
majority
to the
See
majority's bald assertion
10; see
9.94A.010(5). Nevertheless,
also RCW
opinion, at
paramount goal
systems
of both
is punishment.
present
justice system, juvenile
offen-
juvenile
Under
their
RCW
ders
held "accountable for
offenses".
13.40-
.010(2).
citizenry
is to
goal
"[p]rotect
the JJA
punishment
from
"[p]rovide
criminal behavior"
crime,
history
commensurate with the
and criminal
age,
mine.)
(Italics
13.40.010(2)(a),
offender".
RCW
(d).
may
required
Restitution to the
of crime
be
victims
Bush,
State v.
13.40.010(2) (h);
juvenile offender. RCW
A
Youths offenses should be held account- illegal able for their behavior by complying with court offense, The youth's ordered sanctions. more serious the greater youth the sanction the should receive. . . . Sanctions should upon not be based the youth's status, or treatment needs. race, sex, economic mine.) (Italics The Commission concludes: Punishment, the guise rehabilitation, unjust is perceived will be A by youth. such sentence geared that undercuts treatment needs of the youth, significance of the crime The committed. not services should need treatment influence severity of the youth's sentence or sanctions.
(Italics mine.) Guide, 15. primary present goal juvenile justice system longer rehabilitation,
this State no rather but condemna- tion, punishment, and deterrence. Where the has justice these for its goals system, embraced McKeiver to trial must provided. also be Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. Ed. 29 L. 2d 91 Ct. S. (1971) (White, J., concurring).
I explain majority's am at a loss to decision except it postulate affording juvenile reflects view that offenders their constitutional trial would consequences jus- have tremendous adverse for the juvenile concern, system. however, tice This cannot fail- justify the meet ure to our to see that obligation accorded *23 I law —an which obligation rights their full Therefore, I meet. dis- fails to majority utterly believe the sent. December 1987. denied
Reconsideration 52495-5, September En 52597-8. Banc. 1987.] [Nos. Respondent, Washington, v. Scott Stannard, Petitioner. Respondent, Washington, v. John
The State of Petitioners. Appel, al, et