In re G.T.M.

• Decision Date: 23 December 2009
• Docket Number: No. DA 09-0249.,DA 09-0249.
• Parties: In the Matter of G.T.M., a Youth.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

222 P.3d 626

2009 MT 443

354 Mont. 197

In the Matter of G.T.M., a Youth.

No. DA 09-0249.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs October 21, 2009.

Decided December 23, 2009.

For Appellant: Justin B. Lee; Burke, Lee & Bieler, PLLC, Choteau, Montana.

For Appellee: Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana.

Mary Ann Ries, Pondera County Attorney, Conrad, Montana.

Chief Justice MIKE McGRATH delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 G.T.M. appeals from an order of the Ninth Judicial District Court, Pondera County Youth Court, denying his motion to dismiss for lack of capacity to stand trial. We affirm.

¶ 2 We restate the issues for review as follows:

¶ 3 Whether the Montana Youth Court Act violates the constitutional right to equal protection by not providing a procedure to evaluate the competency of youths.

¶ 4 Whether the Youth Court violated G.T.M.'s due process rights by determining that he had the capacity to stand trial and appreciate that his conduct was wrong.

BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On August 13, 2007, G.T.M., who was then nine years old, and another youth started a fire inside an unoccupied house in Conrad. The boys soon became scared, attempted to put out the fire, and then fled. The fire destroyed the house.

¶ 6 The State filed a petition alleging that G.T.M. was a delinquent youth on September 13, 2007. The petition charged G.T.M. with felony arson and misdemeanor criminal trespass. Counsel entered denials for G.T.M. and raised lack of capacity as an affirmative defense. Clinical psychologist Dr. Lynn Johnson (Dr. Johnson) assessed G.T.M.'s ability to have formed the requisite mental intent to commit the crimes alleged and to effectively assist his counsel in his defense. Based on this evaluation, on January 25, 2008, G.T.M.'s counsel filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the youth was too young to form the necessary criminal intent, to understand the process against him, and to effectively assist counsel in his own defense. In response, on February 20, 2008, the State amended its petition to allege G.T.M. was a youth in need of intervention, rather than a delinquent youth, for the underlying offense of negligent arson, rather than arson.

¶ 7 The Youth Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on April 7, 2008. The court indicated that the report of Dr. Johnson was unclear as to his conclusions and that testimony from G.T.M. might be helpful. So the court held another hearing on May 8, 2008. The court advised G.T.M. of his rights, over the objection of his counsel who represented that G.T.M. could not understand them. However, the court was satisfied that the youth understood his rights. Dr. Johnson presented testimony, was cross-examined by the State, and answered questions posed by the court. Dr. Johnson found G.T.M. to be a normal nine-year-old child with "no indications of mental illness, pathological personality, or delinquent disposition." His report indicated G.T.M. "can tell his attorney about his view of the incident and thereby assist in his own defense," but that he does not clearly understand the judicial process. He also opined that it would be a rare nine-year-old child who could appreciate the criminality of acts such as these. Dr. Johnson testified that G.T.M. knew he was starting a fire with a lighter and that he was aware that a fire was dangerous and should be put out. He indicated that G.T.M. became alarmed because he could appreciate the risk a fire posed. The court found that the youth knew setting the fire was wrong based on his "running from the house upon being seen by an adult," his attempt to cover up the burnt spot, and his admission that he fled because he was scared. The court denied G.T.M.'s motion to dismiss on June 12, 2008.¹

¶ 8 At the change of answer hearing on March 6, 2009, G.T.M. again was advised of his rights, again indicated that he understood those rights, and testified about the incident. He answered "true" to the charge of youth in need of intervention to accountability to negligent arson. The court ordered G.T.M. committed to the youth court for placement on probation for two years, subject to conditions including counseling, school attendance, a curfew, and a prohibition on possession of matches or lighters. G.T.M. now appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9 This Court reviews de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss a formal petition in youth court to determine whether the court correctly interpreted the law. Matter of R.L.H., 2005 MT 177, ¶ 15, 327 Mont. 520, 116 P.3d 791. This Court reviews a court's finding of competence to determine whether substantial evidence supports the finding. State v. Garner, 2001 MT 222, ¶ 22, 306 Mont. 462, 36 P.3d 346. Statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality and the person challenging a statute's constitutionality bears the burden of proving it unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Knudson, 2007 MT 324, ¶ 12, 340 Mont. 167, 174 P.3d 469. This Court exercises plenary review of questions of constitutional law, and reviews a district court's application of the Constitution to determine if it is correct. Knudson, ¶ 12. This Court reviews a youth court's interpretation and application of the Youth Court Act for correctness. Matter of K.D.K., 2006 MT 187, ¶ 14, 333 Mont. 100, 141 P.3d 1212.

DISCUSSION

¶ 10 Whether the Montana Youth Court Act violates the constitutional right to equal protection by not providing a procedure to evaluate the competency of youths.

¶ 11 G.T.M. argues that the Montana Youth Court Act violates his constitutional right to equal protection by not providing a procedure and standards to evaluate the competency of youths. Montana law provides a procedure for examining an adult defendant's mental condition when fitness to proceed is at issue. See §§ 46-14-202 through -222, MCA. However, the Youth Court Act contains no similar provision for a youth whose immaturity may affect his fitness to proceed. G.T.M. claims that this violates equal protection.

¶ 12 "In addressing an equal protection challenge, we first identify the classes involved and determine whether they are similarly situated." Matter of S.L.M., 287 Mont. 23, 32, 951 P.2d 1365, 1371 (1997). In Matter of S.L.M., this Court determined that youths sentenced as adults under the Extended Jurisdiction Prosecution Act and adults sentenced for committing the same offense are similarly situated classes for purposes of equal protection. 287 Mont. at 32-33, 951 P.2d at 1371. In that case, youths and adults faced the same sentencing for committing the same offense. Conversely, in Matter of C.S., this Court determined that youths and adults were not similarly situated with respect to sentencing laws, primarily based on different purposes for juvenile and adult commitments and applications of the doctrine of parens patriae. 210 Mont. 144, 146-47, 687 P.2d 57, 59 (1984). In that case, youths in the youth court system and adults in the criminal justice system faced different dispositions for committing the same offense.

¶ 13 The classes here are not similarly situated. Like the youth in Matter of C.S. and unlike the youths in Matter of S.L.M., G.T.M. faces a different disposition for negligent arson as a youth in need of intervention in youth court than an adult would face in district court. Compare § 41-5-345, MCA, with § 45-6-102, MCA. In fact, an order of adjudication from a youth court is considered noncriminal and a youth in need of intervention may not be placed in a jail, secure detention facility, or correctional facility. Sections 41-5-106, -345(2), MCA; State ex rel. Elliot v. Dist. Ct., 211 Mont. 1, 4-5, 684 P.2d 481, 483 (1984). The consequences for G.T.M. alleged to be a youth in need of intervention for negligent arson are significantly different than an adult charged with the same underlying offense of negligent arson.

¶ 14 This critical distinction between youths and adults notwithstanding, G.T.M. complains that adults benefit from procedures to determine whether they are mentally competent to proceed, while youths are not protected by similar procedures to determine whether they are mentally competent to proceed. However, a youth alleging incompetency based on immaturity is not similarly situated to an adult criminal defendant alleging mental disease or defect. All youths experience a period of immaturity, which most youths outgrow. The same cannot be said for mental disease or defect. In fact, Montana law provides detailed procedures for determining incompetency based on mental disease or defect that are simply not applicable to youths claiming immaturity. See §§ 46-14-202 through -222, MCA. Significantly, these procedures dictate that when a defendant lacks fitness to proceed, the court shall commit the defendant to an appropriate mental health facility for the duration of the unfitness. Section 46-14-221(2), MCA. The logical extension of G.T.M.'s argument would require immature youths to be placed in mental health facilities until they are mature enough to stand trial.²

¶ 15 Adults and youths are different, and so are the court systems that recognize those differences. The U.S. Supreme Court discussed key differences between juveniles and adults in its landmark decisions holding that the death penalty cannot be imposed on juvenile offenders. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569-71, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 1195-96, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005); Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 833-38, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 2698-2700, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988). The youth court system was specifically designed to appropriately address the youthful indiscretions resulting from immaturity. The U.S. Supreme Court discussed how the distinct needs of youths are promoted by ensuring their ongoing access to rehabilitative, rather than punitive, juvenile justice systems. See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 539-40, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 1983-84, 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971); In re Gault, 387...