Gammons v. Berlat, 17533-SA

• Decision Date: 08 March 1985
• Docket Number: No. 17533-SA,17533-SA
• Parties: Benjamin Ashley GAMMONS (A person under the age of 18 years), Petitioner, v. The Honorable William BERLAT, Judge Pro Tempore of the Pima County Juvenile Court, State of Arizona, Respondent, and The STATE of Arizona, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 700

696 P.2d 700

144 Ariz. 148

Benjamin Ashley GAMMONS (A person under the age of 18 years), Petitioner, v. The Honorable William BERLAT, Judge Pro Tempore of the Pima County Juvenile Court, State of Arizona, Respondent, and The STATE of Arizona, Real Party in Interest.

No. 17533-SA.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

March 8, 1985.

Frederic J. Dardis, Pima County Public Defender by Carol Wittels, R. David Sobel, Tucson, for petitioner.

Stephen D. Neely, Pima County Atty. by Clinton R. Stinson, Deputy County Atty., Tucson, for respondents.

Collins, Pray & Riddle by James P. Pray, Tucson, for amicus curiae Arizona Civil Liberties Union.

HOLOHAN, Chief Justice.

The petitioner, a thirteen year old, was arrested on February 17, 1984 for sexual abuse and sexual conduct with a minor. He was charged by a petition filed in juvenile court with delinquency for his alleged act in the sexual abuse and sexual conduct incident. During trial review, petitioner denied the allegations of the petition and, through counsel, requested a hearing to determine his legal capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-501. ¹ The State opposed the request for a hearing on the grounds that A.R.S. § 13-501 is inapplicable to delinquency proceedings. The Judge Pro Tempore assigned to the case by the Pima County Juvenile Court ruled that A.R.S. § 13-501 was not applicable to delinquency proceedings. Petitioner sought relief from the ruling by a special action filed with this court. We accepted jurisdiction of the special action to resolve the matter because it presents an issue of statewide importance affecting the operation of the juvenile court system.

The issue presented is whether the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-501 in the criminal code are applicable to delinquency proceedings in juvenile court. The State urges us to restrict the operation of A.R.S. § 13-501 to those instances where children are tried in adult criminal proceedings following transfer from juvenile court. See Rules 12-14, Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Courts, 17A A.R.S. The State's contention is that the delinquency adjudication provisions of the juvenile code create an independent procedure for the disposition of juvenile offenders which is separate from adult criminal prosecution and which thereby renders A.R.S. § 13-501 inapplicable. The petitioner argues that the presumption of incapacity for children under fourteen years of age is a safeguard for all children accused of criminal behavior whether charged in an adult criminal proceeding or in juvenile court.

A.R.S. § 13-501 codifies a variant of the common law infancy defense to criminal prosecution. State v. Taylor, 109 Ariz. 481, 512 P.2d 590 (1973) (construing § 13-135, statutory predecessor to A.R.S. § 13-501). Although the present wording dates from the 1978 criminal code revision, with minor changes the codification has been in place since 1887. ² The common law infancy defense precluded criminal prosecution for children under the age of seven, and created a rebuttable presumption of incapacity for children seven to fourteen on the ground that "[c]ommon law criminal culpability was based on both an assumption of capacity to know wrongfulness and proof of the specific mens rea required to commit a crime ... [and] children are less capable than adults of understanding wrongfulness or of possessing the intent required to legitimately impose punishment." Walkover, "The Infancy Defense in the New Juvenile Court," 31 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 503, 509-10 (1984). Arizona's codified incapacity provision modifies the common law in that it does not bar criminal adjudication of children under seven; rather it extends the rebuttable presumption to all youth under fourteen.

The juvenile code defines a "delinquent act" as "an act by a child, which if committed by an adult would be a criminal offense...." A.R.S. § 8-201(9). This definition is essentially unaltered from the original enactment of the juvenile code in 1912. ³ The definition of "delinquent act" refers to criminal provisions to establish which acts constitute delinquent conduct. See A.R.S. § 8-201(9). Capacity to understand the wrongfulness of one's behavior is a prerequisite to criminal liability under the criminal code when the age of the offender is less than fourteen years. A.R.S. § 13-501. Does the definition of delinquent act in the juvenile code include the capacity limitation of the criminal code?

Arizona modeled A.R.S. § 13-501 after California's version of the infancy defense. ⁴ See Penal Code, Part I, Title I, § 24, Revised Statutes of Arizona (1913) (marginal note). Although not binding on this court, we follow the practice of construing statutes consistently with cases decided by the courts of the state from which the statute was adopted. State v. Tramble, 144 Ariz. 48, 695 P.2d 737 (1985). The construction given by the court of the state from which the statute was adopted must, however, be consistent with the goals and intent of our legislature. Id.; see also DeBoer v. Brown, 138 Ariz. 168, 673 P.2d 912 (1983).

In 1970, the California Supreme Court applied its codified infancy defense, California Penal Code § 26, to juvenile delinquency proceedings, Welfare and Institutions Code, § 602 (declaring a juvenile a ward of the juvenile court). ⁵ In re Gladys R., supra, at 862-67, 464 P.2d at 132-36, 83 Cal.Rptr. at 676-80. In re Gladys R. presents factual circumstances similar to the instant action. The State of California commenced an action to declare a 12 year old girl, with a purported mental age of 7, a ward of the juvenile court for allegedly violating a provision of the California Penal Code providing criminal sanctions for annoying or molesting a child under 18 years of age. The California Supreme Court ruled that the juvenile court must conduct a capacity hearing to determine the 12 year old's ability to understand the wrongfulness of her behavior, under § 26 of the California Penal Code, before she could be declared a ward of the court.

A similar conclusion was reached by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania which applied the common law incapacity defense to juvenile delinquency adjudication. Commonwealth v. Durham, 255 Pa.Super. 539, 389 A.2d 108 (1978) (nine year old accused of aggravated assault and possession of an instrument of crime). In Durham, the court could find no evidence that the legislature intended to displace the common law incapacity defense by the enactment of its juvenile act, and found that, during the adjudicatory stages of a delinquency proceeding, a juvenile is entitled to many of the due process rights afforded adult criminal defendants. Id. at 542, 389 A.2d at 110. In both Gladys R. and Durham there were dissenting positions, however, rejecting the incapacity defense in juvenile delinquency adjudication. In re Gladys R., supra (Burke, J. concurring and dissenting, McComb, J. joins); Commonwealth v. Durham, supra (Price, J. dissenting, Van der Voort, J. joins). In each case, the dissenters argued that the establishment of the juvenile code displaced the common law incapacity defense (or the statutory variation) because "[p]roceedings in the juvenile court are conducted for the protection and benefit of minors and not to prosecute them as law violators...." In re Gladys R., supra at 870, 464 P.2d at 138, 83 Cal.Rptr. at 682 (citations omitted).

Those jurisdictions rejecting a capacity requirement in juvenile delinquency proceedings have also relied on the rationale that a delinquency adjudication does not result in the imposition of criminal sanctions; rather the purpose of a delinquency proceeding is rehabilitative. See Jennings v. State, 384 So.2d 104 (Ala.1980); State v. D.H., 340 So.2d 1163 (Fla.1976); In re Dow, 75 Ill.App.3d 1002, 31 Ill.Dec. 39, 393 N.E.2d 1346 (1979); Matter of Davis, 17 Md.App. 98, 299 A.2d 856 (1973); In re Michael, R.I., 423 A.2d 1180 (1981); In the Matter of Skinner, 272 S.C. 135, 249 S.E.2d 746 (1978). The approach of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island is representative of those jurisdictions rejecting a capacity requirement:

Once one accepts the principle that a finding of delinquency or waywardness in a juvenile proceeding is not the equivalent of a finding that the juvenile has committed a crime, there is no necessity of a finding that the juvenile had such maturity that he or she knew what he or she was doing was wrong. A juvenile is delinquent or wayward, not because the juvenile has committed a crime, but because the juvenile has committed an act that would be a crime if committed by a person not a juvenile and because the juvenile requires "such care, guidance and control * * * as will serve the child's welfare and the best interests of the state * * *."

In re Michael, supra, 423 A.2d at 1183 (citation omitted).

Although the specific issue in this case has not been addressed by us in the past, an early decision of this court discussed the function of the juvenile code. Burrows v. State, 38 Ariz. 99, 297 P. 1029 (1931), vacated on other grounds, State v. Hernandez, 83 Ariz. 279, 282, 320 P.2d 467, 469 (1958). In Burrows, a criminal defendant convicted of first degree murder appealed his conviction, inter alia, on the ground that since at the time the murder was committed he was under 18 years of age, the trial court should have proceeded against him as a juvenile. The Burrows court rejected petitioner's contention, holding that juvenile court jurisdiction did not attach when a defendant had reached 18 years of age by the time the information against him was filed. Id. at 111, 297 P. at 1034. The court discussed the purpose of the juvenile statutes in Arizona:

[T]he purpose of the Arizona juvenile law is not to attempt to establish an arbitrary age below which the child is presumed to be ignorant of the consequences of his acts, but rather to provide a special method of treatment for minors under the age of eighteen who have...