Articles related to Juvenile Justice - Page 2 of 4

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.

When the court issues an order of disposition committing a juvenile to a youth development center (YDC), that commitment is almost always required to be for an indefinite period of time that lasts at least six months. G.S.7B-2513(a). The court cannot order an end date for these commitments. However, the court is required to determine the maximum period the juvenile may remain committed before an extension would have to be filed or the juvenile must be released, and to notify the juvenile of that determination at the time disposition is ordered. G.S.7B-2513(a4). How should this maximum period of commitment be calculated? And is every commitment eligible for an extension? This post addresses these questions.

The Juvenile Code authorizes 14 different dispositional alternatives for delinquency cases that result in Level 1 dispositions and 23 different dispositional alternatives for delinquency cases that result in Level 2 dispositions. G.S. 7B-2508(c), (d); G.S. 7B-2506(1)-(23). For both Level I and Level 2 dispositions, cooperating with substance abuse treatment is a dispositional option.  It can be challenging to sort through the many available dispositional alternatives to order an effective and individually tailored disposition that addresses the risks and needs of the juvenile. This blog addresses why it might be important to focus on substance use disorders as part of disposition, how to know when a juvenile needs substance use disorder treatment, and how substance use disorder treatment may be included as a dispositional alternative.

This post covers recent statutory changes related to the custodial interrogation of youth who are 16 and 17 years of age and to the issuance and execution of secure custody orders in delinquency cases. All of these changes are contained in Session law 2023-114 and will apply to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2023.

One of the more common questions I receive about the transfer of a case from juvenile jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the superior court for trial as an adult is whether transfer can be ordered based on consent of the juvenile. The issue seems to cross my desk when a juvenile has some charges pending in criminal court and there are unrelated felony charges pending under juvenile jurisdiction. The short answer is no. The statutory structure that governs transfer does not allow for ordering transfer based on consent. Why?

Delinquency adjudications and criminal convictions of minors who have been transferred to Superior Court for trial as adults both require that the elements of the offense charged are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, including that the required criminal state of mind, or mens rea, existed.  The adolescent mind has been the subject of substantial scientific research. This research grounded several United State Supreme Court decisions related to criminal punishment of minors and when Miranda warnings are necessary. However, the question of how the science of adolescent brain development does or does not connect to the mens rea requirements of various offenses is not well litigated. The North Carolina Court of Appeals dipped a toe in this area in its recent ruling in State v. Smith, __ N.C. App. __ (June 6, 2023).

What law applies when a juvenile is suspected of impaired driving? If the juvenile is 16- or 17-years-old, the criminal law applies in the same way that it applies to […]

The law that governs the use of nontestimonial identification procedures in delinquency matters is markedly different than the law that governs use of these same procedures in criminal matters. The Juvenile Code requires a court order prior to the use of most nontestimonial identification procedures, a nontestimonial identification order (NTO) can only be issued in relation to felony charges, there are specific statutes that govern the destruction of resulting records, and the willful violation of the juvenile NTO statutes carries a criminal penalty. This post describes when NTOs are needed, and the procedure that must be followed to obtain them, in matters under juvenile jurisdiction.

One of the unique features of the juvenile justice system is its statutory focus on identifying the needs of juveniles and resolving matters to provide “appropriate rehabilitative services to juveniles.” […]

What circumstances constitute custodial interrogation in a school setting? Who counts as a guardian or custodian for the purpose of a custodial interrogation of a juvenile? Under what circumstances can […]