In Interest of K.A.R.

Decision Date02 November 1983
Docket NumberNo. 53935,53935
Citation441 So.2d 108
PartiesIn the Interest of K.A.R., a Minor.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Harry L. Kelley, Jackson, for appellant.

Joe B. Moss, Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Anita Mathews Stamps, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before BROOM, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, JJ.

PRATHER, Justice, for the Court:

K.A.R., a married minor, was arrested at her home in Raymond, Second Judicial District, Hinds County, Mississippi and charged with possession of marijuana and hashish. A youth court hearing was held in the First Judicial District of Hinds County at which time K.A.R. was determined to be a delinquent under the Youth Court Act, section 43-21-101 et seq., of the Mississippi Code Annotated (1972), and committed in the custody of the Department of Youth Services for placement at Columbia Training School. She takes this appeal and assigns as error that:

(1) The youth court had no jurisdiction over a married minor under the age of eighteen years;

(2) The youth court sitting in the First Judicial District of Hinds County had improper venue since the alleged offense occurred in and the minor resided in the Second Judicial District of Hinds County; and

(3) The finding that K.A.R. was delinquent was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

We agree that the finding of delinquency was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; therefore, we reverse the finding and discharge the minor. We do, however, feel the need to address the other two assignments of error as well.

I.

K.A.R. is a sixteen year old female married to D.R., both of whom at the time of this incident, lived in a trailer at Raymond, Mississippi. A third person by the name of Oddie Hughes also resided at the trailer.

On March 14, 1982, police officers entered the trailer with a search warrant. At the time of the search K.A.R., D.R., Oddie Hughes, D.R.'s two sisters and his brother-in-law were present. The brother-in-law and two sisters arrived at the trailer about an hour before the police arrived. Oddie Hughes had been there for about five minutes.

The hashish was found in a P.C.V. pipe located under the trailer. The marijuana was found on the floor in the living room area of the trailer. There was no testimony at the hearing that K.A.R. was in actual possession of either substance. K.A.R. claimed that the marijuana belonged to Oddie Hughes and that he had brought it to the trailer moments before the police arrived. She knew nothing about the hashish. K.A.R. stated that Hughes often brought marijuana to the trailer and that her husband sometimes kept marijuana around the trailer. She stated that when the police arrived at the trailer, Hughes knocked the marijuana off of a table and on to the floor.

II.

The first question for this Court to decide is whether the youth court has jurisdiction over married minors under the age of eighteen years. We hold that it does.

A "child" under Mississippi's Youth Court Act is defined as "a person who has not reached his eighteenth birthday." Further, it says that, "a child who has not reached his eighteenth birthday and is on active duty for a branch of the armed services is not considered a 'child' or 'youth' for the purposes of this chapter." Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 43-21-105(d) (1972).

The youth court jurisdictional statute is section 43-21-151 of the Mississippi Code. The applicable parts of that statute state that:

(1) The youth court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all proceedings concerning a delinquent child, a child in need of supervision, a neglected child or an abused child.

(2) Jurisdiction of the child in the cause shall attach at the time of the offense and shall continue thereafter for that offense until the child's twentieth birthday, unless sooner terminated by order of the youth court. The youth court shall not have jurisdiction over offenses committed by a child on or after his eighteenth birthday.

It is apparent that the applicable statutes do not exclude married minors from the Youth Court Act. Therefore, we hold that the youth court does have jurisdiction over married minors under age eighteen.

III.

The next issue is whether the youth court sitting in the First Judicial District of Hinds County had venue in this case since the alleged offense was committed in and the minor resided in the Second Judicial District of Hinds County.

The youth court was established in Hinds County as a division of the county court. Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 43-21-107(2) (1972). Hinds County has two judicial districts. Courts for the first district are located in Jackson and those in the second district are located in Raymond. The youth court venue statute section 43-21-155 provides that:

If a child is alleged to be a delinquent child or a child in need of supervision, the proceedings shall be commenced in any county where any of the alleged acts are said to have occurred. The youth court may, in the best interest of the child, transfer the case at any stage of the proceeding to the county where the child resides or to a county where a youth court has previously acquired jurisdiction.

This Court has held several times that where a county has two judicial districts, those districts must be treated as two separate counties and that a defendant must be indicted and tried in the judicial district of the county in which the offense was committed. Passions v. State, 208 Miss. 545, 45 So.2d 131 (1950); Evans v. State, 144 Miss. 1, 108 So. 725 (1926); Isabel v. State, 101 Miss. 371, 58 So. 1 (1912). Since each judicial district is to be treated as a separate county for purposes of jurisdiction and venue then under section 43-21-155, a juvenile may be tried either in the district where the offense was committed or in the district where the minor resides.

K.A.R. lived in Raymond and the alleged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In Interest of M.R.L.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 14 Mayo 1986
    ...force that reasonable men could not have found as the Youth Court did beyond a reasonable doubt, we must reverse. See In Interest of K.A.R., 441 So.2d 108, 110 (Miss.1983). On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the adjudication of the Youth Court, evid......
  • S.B. v. State, 89-CA-1211
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 12 Septiembre 1990
    ...force that reasonable men could not have found as the Youth Court did beyond a reasonable doubt, we must reverse. See In Interest of K.A.R., 441 So.2d 108, 110 (Miss.1983). On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the adjudication of the Youth Court, evid......
  • Keller v. Keller, 1999-CA-00874-COA.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 16 Mayo 2000
    ...raised but also resolved by the fact that separate judicial districts in a county are treated as separate counties. In the Interest of K.A.R., 441 So.2d 108, 109 (Miss.1983). The complaints stated that both parties were residents of "this State and County," which fairly notifies Mr. Keller ......
  • D.K.L., In Interest of
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 23 Marzo 1995
    ...force that reasonable men could not have found as the Youth Court did beyond a reasonable doubt, we must reverse. See In Interest of K.A.R., 441 So.2d 108, 110 (Miss.1983). On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the adjudication of the Youth Court, evid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT