In re Interest of J.C.
Decision Date | 17 November 2022 |
Docket Number | 2114 EDA 2021 |
Parties | In the INTEREST OF: J.C. Appeal of: J.C. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Earl D. Raynor, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant.
Elmer D. Christine, Jr., District Attorney, Stroudsburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Matthew J. Bernal, Assistant District Attorney, Stroudsburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.
J.C. appeals from the dispositional order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, after J.C. made an admission to the crime of corruption of minors (COM)1 and was placed on one year of probation. Because a "child," as defined by the Juvenile Act,2 is incapable of committing a crime that applies only to adult perpetrators, we are constrained to vacate and reverse.
On August 17, 2019, Officer John P. Bohman, of the Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department, executed an affidavit of probable cause seeking an arrest warrant for then-fifteen-year-old J.C. (born 4/04).3 The affidavit alleged that J.C. had committed the delinquent acts of aggravated indecent assault without consent,4 indecent assault without consent of other,5 and open lewdness.6 The allegations stemmed from accusations made by A.A., a 14-year-old fellow high school classmate of J.C.’s. A.A. alleged that on May 8, 2019, J.C. touched her breasts and digitally penetrated her vagina without her consent while the two were riding on an after-school bus. Alleged video surveillance from the bus, on the date in question, was erased by the school district during a software update.7
A.A. reported the incident to the principal of her high school, who then contacted the school's dean of students (Dean) and directed the Dean to meet with A.A. N.T. Suppression Hearing, 6/12/20, at 12-13. The Dean met with A.A., who detailed the events that occurred on the school bus, telling him that J.C. had "touched her in inappropriate and unwanted ways." Id. at 13, 23. The Dean then met8 with J.C., in the presence of the school's assistant principal, to determine whether J.C.’s conduct violated school policy. Id. at 13-16. In addition to giving an oral recitation of what occurred between him and A.A. on the bus, J.C. also gave a written statement wherein he admitted to the alleged acts, but claimed that A.C. gave her consent. Id. at 15-16. Prior to giving his statements, J.C.’s parents were not notified and J.C. was not administered his Miranda9 rights. Following his investigation, the Dean concluded that a possible crime had been committed and contacted the school's resource officer to report the alleged incident. Id. at 20-21.
On January 2, 2020, the Monroe County District Attorney's Office filed a petition alleging J.C.’s delinquency for the above-stated offenses. On February 18, 2020, J.C. filed a motion to suppress his oral and written statements, claiming he had been subjected to a custodial interrogation without first being advised of his Miranda rights or given an opportunity to speak with his parents. Following a hearing, the trial judge denied the suppression motion finding: (1) the school officials alone initiated the investigation of J.C.; (2) the purpose of questioning J.C. was primarily to determine whether a violation of school policy had occurred; and (3) the police neither participated in, coerced, dominated, or directed the school officials’ actions. See Order Denying Suppression Motion, 9/22/20, at 2. On July 1, 2021,10 J.C. filed a motion for dismissal, claiming that the Commonwealth's failure to provide the video surveillance was a Brady11 violation warranting dismissal of his case, with prejudice.
On July 7, 2021, J.C. executed a four-page written "admission colloquy form," admitting to COM, a first-degree misdemeanor. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 407. After an adjudicatory hearing, during which the court conducted an oral colloquy, the court accepted J.C.’s admission,12 finding that it was voluntarily made. See N.T. Adjudicatory Hearing, 7/7/21, at 18-28. In exchange for J.C.’s admission, the Commonwealth agreed to nolle prosse all other charges. The juvenile court ordered a Social Study Report be prepared pursuant to Pa.R.J.C.P. 513(A). See Pa.R.J.C.P. 120 ( ). On August 19, 2021, following a dispositional hearing, J.C. was adjudicated delinquent and ordered to serve one year of probation13 and complete the following: (1) perform 50 hours of community service; (2) provide a DNA sample and fingerprints; and (3) undergo a Sexual Offender Evaluation. The court further denied J.C.’s motion to dismiss.14
On August 30, 2021, J.C. filed a post-dispositional motion objecting to the Sexual Offender Evaluation he was ordered to complete, the DNA sample he was required to produce, and alleging a Brady violation due to the failure to preserve the school bus surveillance video. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 620. The motion was denied on September 17, 2021, following a hearing.
J.C. filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. J.C. presents the following issues for our consideration:
Before we review J.C.’s claims, we sua sponte raise the issue of the legality of his disposition based on whether the offense for which he was adjudicated delinquent is a delinquent act within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. See Commonwealth v. Edrington , 780 A.2d 721, 723 (Pa. Super. 2001) ( ); see also In re J.A. , 107 A.3d 799, 809 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2015) ( )(citation omitted).
Our legislature has created a separate legal system for the adjudication of juvenile offenders. In re Huff , 399 Pa.Super. 574, 582 A.2d 1093, 1098 (1990) ; see also 42 Pa.C.S § 6301(b)(2) ( )(emphasis added).
The Juvenile Act (Act) grants jurisdiction to the juvenile court over proceedings in which a child is alleged to be delinquent or dependent. Id. at § 6303. See Commonwealth v. J.H.B. , 760 A.2d 27, 30 (Pa. Super. 2000) (). In order to adjudicate a child delinquent, the juvenile court16 must (1) determine that the juvenile has committed a delinquent act and (2) determine that the juvenile requires treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation. See In the Interest of M.W. , 614 Pa. 633, 39 A.3d 958 (2012). A determination that a child has committed a delinquent act does not, on its own, warrant an adjudication of delinquency. See id.
The Act defines a "Child" as "[a]n individual who":
Id. at § 6302 (emphasis added). Additionally, the Act defines a "Delinquent Act" as:
To continue reading
Request your trial