Articles in the Juvenile Justice category - Page 2 of 12

Does the law regarding motor vehicle seizure when a person is charged with felony speeding to elude arrest or an offense involving impaired driving apply to juveniles? If the case is subject to original juvenile jurisdiction, the answer is no. Read on to understand why that is and what to do if a seizure order is improperly issued.

The Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) is a binding compact that establishes the law that governs the interstate movement of juveniles who are involved in the juvenile justice system. One of the purposes of the ICJ is to “[r]eturn juveniles who have… been accused of an offense to the state requesting their return.” G.S. 7B-4001(b)(3). This is akin to the extradition process used in criminal matters. The proper procedure to return a juvenile who is accused of an act of delinquency in another state to that other state is found in the ICJ rules. This post walks through the procedure.

Beginning with offenses committed on or after January 1, 2025, new laws are in effect regarding the standard and procedures for addressing juvenile capacity to proceed. The new statutes can be found in G.S. 7B-2401-2401.5. You can find blogs about the details of the new standard and procedures here and here. This major revision to the law of juvenile capacity to proceed required new court forms and a new process for credentialing juvenile forensic evaluators. This post details those new structures.

When Session Law (S.L.) 2024-17 takes effect next Sunday, December 1, cases in which a Class A – E felony offense is alleged to have been committed at age 16 or 17 will originate under criminal jurisdiction. This means that the juveniles involved in these cases will be processed as defendants in criminal proceedings and not under the procedure for initiating a juvenile delinquency proceeding. At first blush, it may seem that this change will bring local procedure back to what it was before most offenses committed at ages 16 and 17 were brought under original juvenile jurisdiction (with the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act in 2019). However, since 2019, both federal and state law changed in ways that shifted the landscape of arrest processing and confinement of minors. This blog explores these changes and their impact on implementation of S.L. 2024-17.

A new law governing capacity to proceed in delinquency cases is set to take effect beginning with offenses committed on or after January 1, 2025. Part V. of Session Law 2023-114 creates a juvenile capacity standard and establishes procedures to be used when capacity to proceed is challenged. You can find a description of much of the new law in my blog from September. This post explains the juvenile remediation process that will be available under the new law for certain cases in which a juvenile is found to lack capacity to proceed.

The current law that governs a juvenile’s capacity to proceed in a delinquency matter matches part of the criminal law that governs a defendant’s capacity to proceed. The Juvenile Code expressly incorporates G.S. 15A‑1001, ‑1002, and ‑1003—the criminal provisions that establish a capacity standard and establish procedure to raise and determine capacity to proceed. G.S. 7B-2401. The criminal provisions that address safeguarding the defendant to return for trial should the defendant subsequently become capable of proceeding and return of the defendant for trial upon gaining capacity are notably absent from the Juvenile Code.

Beginning with offenses committed on January 1, 2025, the Juvenile Code will contain new laws, different from the criminal law, that establish a juvenile capacity standard, establish procedures to raise and determine capacity, and create new procedures for remediation of incapacity. This blog summarizes the new juvenile capacity standard and outlines the procedure to raise and determine capacity under the new law. More information on criminal procedure related to capacity to proceed can be found at https://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/criminal/capacity-proceed.

Session Law 2024-17 contains several changes to delinquency law and new penalties for soliciting a minor to commit an offense. I covered the changes related to juvenile jurisdiction and the transfer process in last month’s blog. This blog explains the remaining changes. They include modifications to the timelines for secure custody hearings and for a victim or a complainant to request prosecutor review of a decision not to file a petition, school notification of the filing of a felony delinquency petition, restitution as a dispositional alternative, and the crime of soliciting a minor to commit an offense. These changes will take effect beginning with offenses committed on or after December 1, 2024.

Session Law 2024-17 enacts changes to the law regarding the scope of original juvenile jurisdiction beginning with offenses committed on or after December 1, 2024. Law changes regarding the existing process to transfer a case from juvenile to superior court will also take effect at that time. Read on for a description of the changes.

Is the court bound to order a certain disposition in a delinquency matter when the juvenile and the prosecutor agree to that disposition as part of an agreement? The short answer is no. The Juvenile Code requires the court to engage in certain procedures, to consider certain factors, and to order disposition in accord with certain parameters when developing and ordering a delinquency disposition. The mandates on the court cannot be delegated to the parties and they are not optional. This post describes these mandates and explores the implications for dispositional outcomes that are agreed upon by the juvenile and the prosecutor.

Are there limits on the court’s ability to continue the dispositional hearing in a delinquency case? The Court of Appeals recently identified one limit In re D.R.F., Jr., ____ N.C.App. _____ (May 7. 2024).  The court held that a continuance for the sole purpose of placing the juvenile in secure custody as punishment before disposition is not a valid basis for that continuance and constitutes an abuse of discretion.