Commonwealth v. Taylor
Decision Date | 19 May 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 29 MAP 2019,29 MAP 2019 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Nazeer TAYLOR, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
This appeal asks whether a minor's Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was violated when a juvenile court granted the Commonwealth's request to have a delinquency matter transferred to an adult court for criminal prosecution, based in part upon the minor's decision not to admit culpability to the delinquent acts alleged. We hold that it was.
The events that formed the basis of Nazeer Taylor's prosecution occurred between July 2012 and August 2013, when he was fifteen years old. In March 2014, the Commonwealth filed a delinquency petition alleging that Taylor committed numerous delinquent acts purportedly stemming from recurring incidents of sexual assault of his then-eleven-year-old foster brother, A.O. Pursuant to Section 6355 of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6355, the Commonwealth petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Juvenile Court Division, to transfer the delinquency petition to the adult division for criminal prosecution.
A two-day certification hearing commenced on April 2, 2014, before the Honorable Joseph A. Smyth. At the hearing, A.O. testified that Taylor orally and anally sodomized him on several occasions when A.O. was in sixth grade, resulting in chronic physical damage and severe mental anguish. Notes of Testimony ("N.T."), 4/2/2014, at 6-77. The boys’ foster mother also described a number of discrete episodes that piqued her suspicions that Taylor might have engaged in improper behavior with A.O. Id. at 77-112. In light of this testimony, the juvenile court found that the Commonwealth had established a prima facie case that Taylor had committed the delinquent acts alleged in the petition. Id. at 114-15. Due to Taylor's prior delinquency adjudication for burglary, a first-degree felony, the burden shifted to the defense to establish that transfer would not serve the public interest. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6355(g).1
The hearing was continued to April 25, 2014, for Taylor's rebuttal. To substantiate Taylor's claim that he was amenable to treatment in the juvenile system, the defense offered the expert testimony of Dr. Nicole Machinski, a licensed clinical psychologist who specializes in forensic assessment, including the identification and treatment of juvenile sex offenders. N.T. 4/25/2014, at 4, 9. Based upon her evaluation of Taylor and her review of the underlying record, Dr. Machinski opined that Taylor "could certainly be treated" in the three years he had remaining "under the purview of the juvenile justice system" through either an outpatient or residential treatment program, which average "about 12 months" in length. Id. at 21-22. Upon cross-examination, the Commonwealth challenged Taylor's amenability to treatment by, inter alia , invoking the fact that Taylor had neither admitted to the delinquent act nor affirmatively taken responsibility for his actions. Specifically, the Commonwealth suggested that Taylor was "in denial" of his need for treatment, prompting a defense objection, which the court sustained. Id. at 44. The Commonwealth subsequently posited that "the first step in sex offender treatment [is] admitting guilt," id. at 58, and, after the close of evidence, reiterated its view that Taylor was "in denial" and that an "admission" would be necessary for treatment to work in this case. Id. at 109.
The juvenile court agreed with the Commonwealth that Taylor was not amenable to treatment within the juvenile system, certified the matter to adult criminal court, and contemporaneously offered the following rationale in support of its ruling:
Id. at 112-15 (emphasis added).
Following certification, from June 20-21, 2016, Taylor was tried before a jury, with the Honorable William R. Carpenter presiding. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Taylor guilty of rape of a child and some related crimes. On January 31, 2017, the court sentenced Taylor to an aggregate term of ten to twenty-five years’ imprisonment, followed by ten years’ probation. Taylor appealed his judgment of sentence.
In an unpublished decision, the Superior Court affirmed. Commonwealth v. Taylor , 856 EDA 2017, 2018 WL 4290127 (Pa. Super. Sept. 10, 2018). Relevant here, Taylor asserted that the juvenile court violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination when deciding whether to transfer the matter by relying substantially upon Taylor's refusal to admit to the alleged offenses. The panel noted that Id. at *5 ( ). Turning to the merits, the court acknowledged that it previously had held that the privilege against self-incrimination applied in decertification proceedings, which require the same amenability-to-treatment analysis for juvenile defendants.2 In Commonwealth v. Brown , 26 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2011), a homicide case involving an eleven-year-old appellant, the panel reversed an order denying decertification because the trial court relied upon the Commonwealth's expert witness, who had testified that Brown needed to admit guilt in order to prove his amenability to treatment in the juvenile system. The Superior Court reasoned that, by holding Brown's failure to incriminate himself against him, the court violated his Fifth Amendment privilege. Id. at 510.
Here, the juvenile court similarly "referenced Taylor's failure to admit guilt and that admission was a step in sex offender treatment." Taylor , 2018 WL 4290127 at *6. Citing Brown , the Superior Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Cosby
...the centrality of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination in the American concept of ordered liberty in Commonwealth v. Taylor , 230 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2020). There, we noted that certain rights, such as those enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, are among those privileges "whose exerc......
-
Commonwealth v. Rivera
...... Barry , 454 A.2d 985, 987 (Pa. 1982) (summarizing a. juvenile appellant's argument that the waiver of his. Miranda rights was not voluntary). . . [ 5 ] Commonwealth v. Cosby , 252 A.3d. 1092, 1139 (Pa. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Taylor , 230 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2020)). . . [ 6 ] Michael Hor, The Privilege Against. Self Incrimination and Fairness to the Accused , Sing. J. Legal Stud. 35 (1993). The author offers the following with. regard to the privilege against self-incrimination:. . . ......
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, No. 24 EAP 2019
-
Commonwealth v. Taylor
...harmless error doctrine is applicable here, and if it is not or if the error is not harmless, for consideration of the available relief. Id. at 1073. received supplemental advocacy from the parties, we now conclude that the juvenile court's violation of Taylor's Fifth Amendment privilege co......