In re Kevin R.

• Citation: 762 S.E.2d 387,409 S.C. 297
• Decision Date: 06 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. 27430.,27430.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: In the Interest of KEVIN R., A Juvenile Under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2012–212655.

409 S.C. 297

762 S.E.2d 387

In the Interest of KEVIN R., A Juvenile Under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012–212655.

No. 27430.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard April 16, 2014.

Decided Aug. 6, 2014.

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

John S. Nichols, of Bluestein, Nichols, Thompson & Delgado, L.L.C., of Columbia; John D. Elliott, of Law Offices of John D. Elliott, P.A., of Columbia; and Bert G. Utsey, III, of Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth & Detrick, P.A., of Walterboro; for Amici Curiae, South Carolina Association for Justice, South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Lawyers Committee for Children's Rights.

Justice BEATTY.

In a juvenile petition, the State charged Kevin R. (“Appellant”) with possessing a weapon on school grounds in violation of section 16–23–430 of the South Carolina Code.¹ Prior to his adjudicatory hearing before a family court judge, Appellant moved for a jury trial on the ground the United States Constitution ² and the South Carolina Constitution ³ guaranteed him the right to a jury trial. The judge denied the motion and proceeded to hear Appellant's case in a bench trial. Ultimately, the judge adjudicated Appellant delinquent and deferred sentencing until an evaluation of Appellant was completed. The sentencing hearing was conducted before a second family court judge, who sentenced Appellant to an indeterminate period of time not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. The judge then suspended the sentence and placed Appellant on probation until his eighteenth birthday.

On appeal, Appellant contends the family court judge erred in denying his motion for a jury trial. Recently, this Court held a juvenile does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial in adjudication proceedings. In re Stephen W., 409 S.C. 73, 761 S.E.2d 231 (2014). (“ Stephen W.”). However, our decision in that case is not dispositive as we have now been presented with additional arguments raised by Appellant and the Amici Curiae. After consideration of these issues, we adhere to our decision in Stephen W. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the family court.

I. Factual/Procedural History

On October 4, 2011, Richland County Deputy Milton Clark, the school resource officer at Olympia Learning Center, received a call from an employee of the school. Based on this call, Deputy Clark removed Appellant, a sixteen-year-old student at the school, from a classroom and took him to a secure area to question him regarding his alleged possession of a weapon. Appellant admitted that he had a pocketknife in his sock. Deputy Clark then searched Appellant and found a pocketknife with a three-inch retractable blade.

On October 24, 2011, Deputy Clark filed a juvenile petition in Richland County family court, alleging Appellant was a delinquent for carrying a weapon on school grounds. The Honorable Robert E. Newton held an adjudicatory hearing on July 24, 2012. At the beginning of the hearing, Appellant's counsel moved for a jury trial on the ground Appellant was entitled to have a jury adjudicate his case based on the federal and state constitutions. Judge Newton denied Appellant's motion and proceeded with the bench trial. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Newton adjudicated Appellant to be delinquent for possessing a weapon on school grounds. Because Appellant was currently being evaluated at the Midlands Evaluation Center, Judge Newton delayed sentencing until the evaluation was completed.

On August 1, 2012, the Honorable Gwendlyne Y. Smalls held a hearing and ultimately sentenced Appellant to an indeterminate period of time not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. She then suspended the sentence and placed Appellant on probation, subject to certain conditions, until his eighteenth birthday. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. This Court certified the case pursuant to Rule 204(b) of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules.

II. Discussion

A. Arguments

1. Appellant

Appellant contends section 63–3–590 of the South Carolina Code, ⁴ which provides in part that “[a]ll cases of children must be dealt with as separate hearings by the court and without a jury,” violates the clear mandate of the South Carolina Constitution that “any person” charged with an “offense” shall be entitled to a jury trial. In support of this contention, Appellant asserts a juvenile is guaranteed the right to a jury trial because (1) a “child” is a “person” as defined throughout the South Carolina Code, ⁵ and (2) a juvenile petition charges a child with an “offense.” ⁶

As to the United States Constitution, Appellant acknowledges the United States Supreme Court's decision in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971), in which a plurality of the Court determined that juveniles are not constitutionally entitled to a jury trial in adjudication proceedings. However, Appellant challenges the propriety of McKeiver because “[i]n the forty years since McKeiver, the purposes and consequences of delinquency proceedings have changed.” Specifically, Appellant asserts the South Carolina juvenile justice system is now much like the adult criminal justice system as the focus is punishment of the juvenile offender rather than rehabilitation. For example, Appellant notes that juveniles, who are adjudicated delinquent for enumerated sex offenses, must register for life as sex offenders.⁷ Thus, Appellant maintains that “[l]ittle distinguishes delinquency proceedings from criminal prosecutions except the absence of a jury.”

2. Amici Curiae

An amicus brief was filed on behalf of the South Carolina Association for Justice, the South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Lawyers Committee for Children's Rights. In this brief, the Amici Curiae reiterate Appellant's arguments that a juvenile should be “allowed to demand” a trial by jury in family court because: (1) a juvenile was entitled to a jury trial at the time of the adoption of the South Carolina Constitution in 1868; ⁸ and (2) a “child” is a “person” as defined throughout the South Carolina Code and a juvenile petition charges a child with an “offense.”

The Amici Curiae supplement Appellant's arguments with policy considerations that were raised during the oral argument of Stephen W. Initially, they contend the availability of a trial by jury for a juvenile will “result in more reliable verdicts” because there are several deficiencies in family court bench trials. Specifically, they claim juvenile adjudications are not always accurate or reliable because a family court judge, who is the sole fact-finder, may: (1) be inclined to find guilt due to his or her “professional bias” that “fault must be found and the youngster punished”; (2) apply an erroneous legal standard in determining whether an offense was committed; and (3) reach “erroneous conclusions based on insufficient evidence.” Given the significant collateral consequences a juvenile faces as the result of an adjudication of guilt, they maintain a jury trial is necessary to ensure accuracy in fact-finding and to create a complete record for appellate review.

Although the Amici Curiae concede there would need to be certain procedural and logistical changes to accommodate a juvenile's request for a jury trial, they assert these changes are not insurmountable as evidenced by the states that currently provide jury trials for adjudication proceedings. ⁹ For several reasons, they believe South Carolina family courts could join these jurisdictions with minimal disruption to the state's court system. They contend there would be few jury trials conducted as contested adjudications occur infrequently. In addition, they state the venue for conducting these trials “should be relatively simple” as the family court in each judicial circuit has access to a courtroom, either in circuit court or magistrate's court, which contains a jury box. Finally, they posit that assembling a venire for jury selection would not be difficult as the clerks of court throughout the state routinely summon jurors for jury duty in Common Pleas or General Sessions. Thus, jurors could be selected from these jury pools to serve on family court jury trials.

B. Analysis1. Implication of In the Interest of Stephen W.

Recently, this Court held that neither the federal nor the state constitution requires a jury trial in juvenile adjudication proceedings. In re Stephen W., 409 S.C. 73, 761 S.E.2d 231 (2014). As noted in Stephen W., the United States Supreme Court's decision in McKeiver definitively resolves Appellant's argument with respect to the federal constitution. iD. at ––––, 761 S.E.2D 231. mOreover, “[m]ost jurisdictions that have dealt with the issue of the continued viability of McKeiver have determined that it is still settled law; that is, jury trials in juvenile proceedings may be provided if a State chooses to do so, but it is not a mandated right required by concerns of fundamental fairness under the Federal Constitution.” In the Interest of A.C., 426 N.J.Super. 81, 43 A.3d 454, 461 (Ch.Div.2012) (emphasis added). See generally B. Finberg, Annotation, Right to Jury Trial in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, 100 A.L.R.2d 1241, § 2[a] (1965 & Supp.2014) (collecting state and federal cases discussing whether a juvenile is entitled to a jury trial in juvenile court proceedings; recognizing that “the individual charged with being a delinquent has no right, under the pertinent state or federal constitution, to demand that the issue of his delinquency be determined by a jury”).

Furthermore, as analyzed in Stephen W., the General Assembly has created a system for juveniles that is distinctly different from adult offenders based on the premise that “South Carolina, as parens...