Articles in the Juvenile Justice category - Page 11 of 12

A growing number of teens in NC and across the nation are facing criminal charges for sexting.

A few months ago, I wrote a blog post about a Fayetteville case involving two teens charged with felony child pornography for sending naked selfies to each other. The teens in that case, a boyfriend and girlfriend, ultimately pled guilty to misdemeanors (disseminating harmful material to minors) and their cases will be dismissed if they successfully complete a one-year term of probation under a deferred prosecution agreement. New sexting cases are reportedly being investigated in Wake County at two separate high schools, one of which may involve extortion. Based on my recent advising requests, other counties are also dealing with sexting issues in their schools. The offending students often end up with felony charges, at least initially, for behavior which one recent study suggests is a fairly common practice among U.S. teens. The question is how should the state respond?

Every other year the School of Government and Office of Indigent Defense Services hold a multi-day skills training for juvenile defenders in North Carolina. The first day of this year’s intensive training was held at the Guilford County Juvenile Detention Center in Greensboro, NC. The juvenile defenders first heard sessions on adolescent brain development by Dr. Ayesha Chaudhary, Forensic Psychiatrist at Duke University, and detention advocacy by Mitch Feld, Director of Children’s Defense at the Council for Children’s Rights. This set the stage for the tour of the facility and conversations with the youth.

Unless the court has specified a shorter term, a juvenile’s initial term of probation expires after one year, if not extended by the court. Extensions of probation are governed by G.S. 7B-2510(c), which was amended by HB 879 effective December 1, 2015. The statute now provides that “[p]rior to expiration of an order of probation, the court may extend it for an additional period of one year after notice and a hearing, if the court finds that the extension is necessary to protect the community or to safeguard the welfare of the juvenile.” Since December, I’ve received numerous questions about the new notice requirement, which apparently is being interpreted in many different ways.  To help clarify this question and other issues related to extensions of probation, here’s a brief summary of FAQ’s about the procedure for extending a juvenile’s probation.

Nearly five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided J.D.B. v. North Carolina, a case arising from the police interrogation of a middle school student in Chapel Hill. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that police officers must consider a juvenile’s age when determining whether they must read juveniles their Miranda rights before questioning them. The ruling represents a major shift in Miranda jurisprudence by establishing a different standard for evaluating police interrogations of juveniles – the reasonable child standard. In the years since J.D.B., however, lower courts have not clearly defined how the reasonable child standard impacts the assessment of whether a juvenile was “in custody.” The application of this new standard also raises questions about how North Carolina courts evaluate custody determinations in the school setting. These and other issues are addressed in detail in “Applying the Reasonable Child Standard to Juvenile Interrogations After J.D.B. v. North Carolina” (No. 2016/01).

Several years ago when I was an appellate attorney for the State, I filed a cert petition seeking appellate review of a court order granting a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to set aside an adjudication of delinquency for first degree sex offense. The court found that the allegations were proven beyond a reasonable doubt but then allowed the juvenile’s Rule 60(b) motion because the offense (fellatio) was four years old, it was not committed in a violent manner, the juvenile showed no risk of reoffending, and labeling the juvenile as a sex offender would do him more harm than good. Based on these findings, the court concluded that “extraordinary circumstances” existed and that justice required granting the juvenile’s motion. The Court of Appeals declined to review the order and still hasn’t addressed whether Rule 60(b) applies to delinquency cases.

District court judges throughout the state disagree on the answer (which I discovered during a lively debate in my first juvenile delinquency course at the School of Government). There is no clear answer, but appellate cases suggest that Rule 60(b) does apply. However, it may not authorize setting aside an adjudication order, as described above. Here’s why.

READ POST "Obtaining Relief from an Adjudication of Delinquency: Does Rule 60 Apply? (January 27, 2016)"

Under G.S. 7B-1703(b), a juvenile court counselor (JCC) has “15 days after the complaint is received” to file the complaint as a juvenile petition, or a maximum of 30 days, if the chief court counselor has granted a 15-day extension. I’m often asked whether an untimely filed petition must be dismissed; and if so, whether the State is precluded from filing another petition for the same offense. There are two published appellate cases addressing these issues; In re D.S., 364 N.C. 184 (2010), and In re J.A.G., 206 N.C. App. 318 (2010). Here’s what they say.

READ POST "Untimely Filed Juvenile Petitions – What’s the Remedy? (November 25, 2015)"

Over the past four months, I’ve had the opportunity to discuss the new juvenile delinquency legislation, S.L. 2015-58, with juvenile court officials from every part of the system – prosecutors, […]

In discussing my experience as a juvenile defender with non-lawyers, I have learned that many people believe that juvenile proceedings are completely confidential and under no circumstances can anyone learn about the case or access the records. They also think juvenile matters are not very significant and have no real consequences beyond the juvenile court process.

Last week, a local news outlet reported that the 17-year-old quarterback of a Cumberland County high school was benched when school officials learned he was under investigation for allegedly sending “sexually explicit” photos of himself to his 16-year-old girlfriend. According to the report, officers took the teenager’s phone while investigating another incident and discovered photos of himself and his girlfriend on the phone. Now, both the teenager and his girlfriend are facing charges for “sexting” in what appears to have been a consensual exchange of nude photos between two teens in a dating relationship. Judging by the string of harsh comments to this report (which use various derogatory words to describe the charges), many people are outraged that such behavior, while improper, is a crime. Instead, they suggest that the behavior is a discipline issue that should be privately addressed by parents at home. In response to these concerns, this post examines the criminal laws in NC that possibly cover sexting and discusses their application to minors.

 Last month, I wrote a blog post about the recently enacted Juvenile Code Reform legislation (S.L. 2015-58, HB 879), which creates several new laws affecting delinquent juveniles. The last section of the bill amends G.S. 7B-2506(12) and (20), which authorize intermittent confinement in a juvenile detention facility as a Level 1 or Level 2 dispositional alternative. Currently, the trial court must determine the timing of the intermittent confinement, but beginning December 1, 2015, it must also determine the imposition of the confinement. Although this change appears to be minor, it addresses a major issue related to juvenile dispositions – the improper delegation of the trial court’s authority, typically, to court counselors. Most of the calls I get about improper delegation of authority in juvenile court concern intermittent confinement, and particularly, how it is imposed. This post will examine how the new legislation was designed to address these concerns by changing the way district court judges impose intermittent confinement.

READ POST "Improper Delegation of Authority and Intermittent Confinement (August 26, 2015)"