Articles Posted in Juvenile Cases

Incidents that lead to Washington assault charges can often be hectic events with multiple people involved, especially if there are people trying to intervene.  In a recent unpublished opinion, a juvenile challenged fourth degree assault convictions, arguing the state had failed to prove he intended to hit his siblings with a door.

The appeals court described the incident as follows. The juvenile was arguing with his stepmother in his room.  His father came into the room and the juvenile got angry and punched him “a couple of times,” according to the appeals court’s opinion.  The father went outside.

The juvenile followed, but other members of the family tried to stop him.  He hit his stepmother in the stomach. His brother tried to hold the door closed. As the juvenile opened the door, it hit his brother’s arm and his sister’s head. The juvenile punched his father multiple times and his stepmother called 911. The juvenile fled before the ambulance arrived.

Continue reading

A Washington juvenile adjudication of guilt can have lifelong consequences. Current Washington law limits the types of adjudications that can be included in calculating an offender score for a subsequent sentencing, but until recently, other non-violent juvenile adjudications could also affect an offender score.  In a recent case, the state challenged a trial court’s application of the 2023 statutory amendment limiting the inclusion of juvenile adjudications in an offender score because the amendment took effect after the offense occurred.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the defendant was charged with second degree robbery in April 2023.  The legislature amended RCW 9.94A.525(1)(b) in July 2023, which was after the incident leading to the charges and before the defendant’s guilty plea and sentencing. The amended statute prohibits most juvenile adjudications from being included in a defendant’s offender score.

The defendant pleaded guilty in October.  He had previously been adjudicated guilty of second degree assault with a deadly weapon as a juvenile.  This adjudication would have been 2 points under RCW 9.94A.525 before the amendment.  The trial court, however, applied the current version of the statute because it took effect before calculation of the defendant’s offender score and his sentencing.  The trial court determined the defendant had an offender score of 0, resulting in a standard sentencing range of three to nine months.  The court sentenced him to five months confinement.

Continue reading

Pursuant to CrR 8.3(a), a Washington trial court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint upon motion of the prosecutor.  Pursuant to CrR 8.3(b), the court may dismiss a prosecution because of governmental misconduct or arbitrary action if the defendant’s rights have been prejudiced, materially affecting his right to a fair trial.  Pursuant to CrR 8.3(c), the court must dismiss without prejudice if the court grants a defendant’s motion for pretrial dismissal because of insufficient evidence. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether a trial court could dismiss a criminal case with prejudice when the state had moved for dismissal without prejudice pursuant to CrR 8.3(a).

According to the opinion, a juvenile defendant, identified by the appeals court as “WH” was charged with third degree malicious mischief,  first degree animal cruelty, and second degree assault by strangulation, and harassment – threats to kill, arising from an incident involving his girlfriend, identified as “KM.”  He made a preliminary appearance in juvenile court.  The state added charges for attempted second degree murder and, alternatively, second degree attempted felony murder and transferred the case to adult court.

The state subsequently asked to return the case to juvenile court with the attempted murder charges dismissed. The juvenile was arraigned again under the original case number and pleaded not guilty in juvenile court.

Continue reading

Pursuant to State v. Houston-Sconiers, a trial court must consider the mitigating qualities of a juvenile offender’s youth in sentencing a juvenile in a Washington criminal case.  The court has discretion to impose a sentence below the standard range in juvenile cases.  In a recent case, a juvenile defendant challenged his sentence, which was based on a joint recommendation as a result of a plea deal.

According to the Washington Supreme Court’s opinion, the defendant fatally stabbed someone multiple times and stole his wallet.  The defendant ultimately admitted to stabbing the victim.  The defendant was charged with first degree murder with a deadly weapon and would have been subject to a standard range sentence between 240 to 320 months, plus a deadly weapon enhancement.

Following lengthy negotiation, the defendant pleaded guilty to first degree robbery and second degree murder while armed with a deadly weapon.  The standard range sentence was 41 to 54 months for the first degree robbery charge and 142 to 244 months for the second degree murder charge.  The state and the defendant jointly recommended a sentence that would total 244 months of confinement.

Continue reading

A juvenile recently challenged guilty adjudications arising from her actions while being detained and forcibly changed into scrubs at the hospital.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, a deputy went to the high school because the juvenile refused to leave the school.  The juvenile made statements about suicide and self-harm.  She was transported to the hospital’s emergency department.  When she refused to change clothes, she was restrained and forcibly changed into scrubs.  Two nurses told the deputy the juvenile assaulted them.

The juvenile was charged with interference with a health care facility and two counts of assault in the third degree.

Continue reading

Individuals facing Washington criminal charges have a due process right to a “fair trial in a fair tribunal.”  A person’s due process rights may be violated if the court acts as an advocate instead of a neutral arbiter.  A juvenile recently challenged his conviction after the trial judge questioned the prosecution’s witnesses.

The 15-year-old juvenile was charged with escape in the second degree.  The state alleged he had “knowingly escape[d]” from home custody.

Witnesses

A community placement specialist testified about ankle monitor technology and electronic home monitoring (“EHM”).   He was asked on cross examination if he remembered going over the contract with the juvenile or if his answers were based off the reports.  He testified that he “felt” like he had, but could not say so for certain.

Continue reading

In some circumstances, a Washington juvenile court may decline or waive jurisdiction and transfer a case, resulting in the juvenile being tried as an adult.  The U.S. Supreme Court set forth the factors to be considered by a juvenile court in making a decision to decline jurisdiction in Kent v. United States.  Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals has further held that when a defendant raises the issue of racial bias in a declination hearing, supported by some evidence, the juvenile court must rule on the issue.  State of Washington v. Quijas.  In a recent case, Division Three also reviewed a case in which the juvenile court had not addressed the issue of racial bias or discrimination.

At the time of the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the fifteen-year-old defendant was pending trial for first degree murder.  The state alleged the defendant shot and killed a nineteen-year-old man.  The state also alleged the murder had been unprovoked and premeditated, and that the juvenile and the victim did not know each other.

The defendant was just fourteen years old at the time of the shooting.  The state moved to have him tried as an adult.  The court admitted 49 exhibits and heard eight witnesses testify, including the defendant’s mother, his school principal, a gang expert, juvenile detention staff, and a forensic psychologist.

Continue reading

Fines, fees, and penalties can add up and result in a significant financial impact on criminal defendants and their families.  These legal financial obligations can be particularly burdensome when imposed on juvenile offenders, who in some cases may be too young to work and who often come from low-income families.  If they cannot pay, the outstanding debt may affect the juvenile’s ability to obtain credit, housing, or even a job.

Effective July 1, 2023, the legislature amended the penalty assessment statute, RCW 7.68.035, to remove penalty assessments for juveniles and prohibit penalty assessments under that statute for adult defendants found to be indigent.  The legislature also enacted a new statute, RCW 13.40.058, which provides that a court cannot impose or collect any fine, administrative fee, cost, or surcharge from a juvenile or their parent or guardian in connection with a Washington juvenile offender proceeding. This prohibition specifically includes, but is not limited to DNA collection fees, diversion fees, and victims’ penalty assessments. The result of these two laws is that a court can no longer impose any legal financial obligations on a juvenile, except restitution.

Prior to the amendment, RCW 7.68.035 required the court to impose a $100 penalty assessment for each case or cause of action for a “most serious offense” or a sex offense under RCW chapter 9A.44 for which a juvenile was adjudicated. “Most serous offenses” include class A felonies, second degree assault, first and second degree manslaughter, a felony with a deadly weapon verdict, and other specified offenses.  The amendment also removed the requirement for the court to order up to seven hours of community restitution when a juvenile was adjudicated of an offense with a victim that did not constitute a most serious offense or sex offense, unless the court found the order would not be practicable for the juvenile.

Continue reading

Young siblings sometimes scuffle, but they usually are not charged with a Washington crime as a result.  A teenager recently challenged a guilty adjudication for fourth degree assault arising from an altercation with his younger sister.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, which relied primarily on the juvenile court’s unchallenged findings, the sixteen-year-old juvenile had recently had surgery and was weak and had lost weight.  His eleven-year-old sister came upstairs to the bedroom where he was resting looking for the dogs to take them out before school. When she tried to get the juvenile’s dog, it nipped her and she struck it on the nose.  The juvenile told her not to hit the dog.

She called the juvenile a name as she tried to get the other dog from under the bed.  She said the juvenile gave her a “quick tap in the face with his foot.” She responded by throwing a bottle of lotion and a bottle of vitamins at him, hitting him with one of them.

Continue reading

A Washington criminal defendant can raise a self-defense claim by offering some evidence that their actions occurred in circumstances of self-defense.  Once the defendant meets this low burden, the burden shifts to the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the absence of self-defense.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the juvenile’s mother came into the 15-year-old juvenile’s room and saw her hide a cell phone under the covers. The juvenile refused to give it to her mother, and they scuffled over it.  The juvenile ultimately kicked her mother twice.

The state charged the juvenile with fourth degree assault with notice of a domestic violence allegation.  The juvenile testified , saying, “. . . the only reason I kicked her was to . . . get her off of me,” and “. . . I kicked her because she was on my leg, and it hurt.  And—because I knew at that point I knew I wasn’t going to get the phone back . . . .”

Continue reading