In re M. C. F.
| Decision Date | 10 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 6062.,6062. |
| Citation | 293 A.2d 874 |
| Parties | In the Matter of M. C. F. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Lois R. Goodman, Georgetown Legal Internship Program, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, for appellant.
Richard W. Barton, Assistant Corporation Counsel, with whom C. Francis Murphy, Corporation Counsel, was on the brief, for appellee.
Before KELLY, KERN and PAIR, Associate Judges.
Appellant, a juvenile, was arrested and charged with petit larceny following an incident of alleged shoplifting in a local department store. At a delinquency hearing two store detectives testified for the government that on May 8, 1971, they had observed appellant, along with his brother and a young female companion, shopping in a peculiar manner in the second floor Sports Department.1 Their suspicions were further aroused when a detective from a neighboring store told them that he thought the three had taken some merchandise from his store. As the detectives watched, they saw the young lady remove a blouse from a rack in the Sports Department and hang it on a wall rack in the adjacent Daytime Dress Department. After a few minutes she took the blouse from its hanger and dropped it into one of two shopping bags located beside appellant and his brother. Appellant then picked up the bag containing the blouse and the three headed toward a down elevator, making no attempt to pay for the blouse. They were apprehended in the elevator. In addition to the blouse, the shopping bags contained other apparently unpaid-for items from nearby stores.2
As a preliminary matter counsel for appellant made a motion to close the case without a finding for social reasons. Counsel argued that appellant had never been arrested before; that he had a stable family life with concerned, loving parents, and that he was an honor roll student and president of his high school class. The trial judge denied this motion on the ground that he had no power to grant such a motion. Following a factfinding hearing, appellant was adjudged a delinquent and placed on unsupervised probation for one year.
It is contended that the trial court erred in holding it had no power to close the case without a finding for social reasons. We agree, and remand.3
Superior Court Juvenile Rule 48(b) provides:
. . . Even though the Division may have acquired jurisdiction, it may at any time during or at the conclusion of any hearing dismiss a petition and terminate the proceedings relating to the child, if such action is in the interests of justice and the welfare of the child. The reasons for such dismissal shall be set forth upon request of the Corporation Counsel. Once a factfinding hearing has begun, any dismissal is with prejudice to any further proceedings on the subject . . .
Since the language of Rule 48(b) empowers a judge to dismiss a case at any time during a hearing in the interests of justice or the welfare of the child, even over the objection of the Corporation Counsel, the government questions the validity of that rule within the applicable statutory framework.4
Prior to the passage of the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 (Pub.L. No. 91-358, 84 Stat. 473), which made extensive changes in the law relating to juveniles, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had held that it was within the judicial prerogative of a juvenile court judge to conduct an informal hearing in chambers, without the prosecutor being present and, on the basis of exculpatory information disclosed there, to dismiss a petition against a juvenile.5 The court reasoned that "the child can be accorded additional rights and privileges beyond those to which the adult defendant is entitled, and judicial conduct which might unfairly disadvantage the District in the prosecution of an adult is not necessarily unfair where the accused is a juvenile and the objective is not to punish but to protect the child."6 The government argues that this holding was legislatively overruled by Congress when it enacted the new juvenile code. Specifically, the government points out that prior to 1970 judges were authorized to conduct juvenile hearings in an informal manner,7 whereas greater formality must now be observed,8 and the participation of the Corporation Counsel in juvenile proceedings was merely permisive,9 while now it is mandatory.10 Additionally, it argues that the creation of a new procedure called a consent decree has eliminated both the need and the possibility of such judicial dismissals of petitions against juveniles.
D.C.Code 1967, § 16-2314 (Supp. V, 1972) provides:
(a) At any time after the filing of a delinquency or need of supervision petition and prior to adjudication at a factfinding hearing, the Division may, on motion of the Corporation Counsel or counsel for the child, suspend the proceedings and continue the child under supervision, without commitment, under terms and conditions established by rules of the Superior Court. Such a consent decree shall not be entered . . . over the objection of the child or of the Corporation Counsel.11
It is the government's position that, since a consent decree cannot be entered over the objection of the Corporation Counsel, a rule enabling a judge to dismiss a petition for social reasons over the prosecutor's objection must be invalid. The government points to a statement by Donald E. Santarelli, Associate Deputy Attorney General, which was presented to the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia while this section was being considered. He said:
Proposed section [16-2314] would create a consent decree procedure in juvenile cases whereby the court could order, prior to adjudication, that the proceedings be suspended under certain conditions. Although many jurisdictions have this type of decree, it has not existed in the District of Columbia. Instead, informal procedures have been devised here to accomplish the same end. However, what we have provided for in proposed section [16-2314] would insure the protection of the child's rights. The consent decree procedure would be authorized only upon a court order where the child was represented by counsel and only for a limited period of time — 6 months. The child would, in contrast to the present informal practice, have the best of both worlds since by his own good behavior he could bring about the dismissal of the petition which had been filed against him, or if he failed to behave, he would still be in a position to challenge the allegation of the petition without previously having surrendered or waived any of his rights.12
We do not find these arguments dispositive, however. We note that under the new law there are two essential elements in a finding of delinquency. A petition in a delinquency case must state not only the statute or ordinance on which the charge is based, but also a statement "that the child appears to be in need of care or rehabilitation." D.C.Code 1967, § 16-2305(d) (Supp. V, 1972). Delinquency adjudication consists of two steps: First, a factfinding hearing must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE D.H.
...the case and a determination by the trial court of the appropriate sanction in the exercise of its sound discretion. See In re M.C.F., 293 A.2d 874, 878 (D.C. 1972). B. The Rule 48(b) D.H. argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying D.H.'s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule......
-
District of Columbia v. M. A. C., 8145.
...they are non-punitive, and therefore they must be civil in nature. See In re M. W. F., D.C.App., 312 A.2d 302 (1973); In re M. C. F., D.C. App., 293 A.2d 874 (1972); Anonymous v. Superior Court, 14 Ariz.App. 502, 484 P.2d 655 (1971); State ex rel. R. L. W. v. Billings, 451 S.W.2d 125 (Mo.19......
-
Matter of G.C.S.
...Navigation Co. v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co., 263 U.S. 629, 635, 44 S.Ct. 220, 68 L. Ed. 480 (1924). Cf. In re M.C.F., D.C. App., 293 A.2d 874 (1972).2 Such would be the result here if rule 48 were read as permitting the trial court to void provisions of the Compact by refusing ......
-
In re D.M.
...factfinding hearing, and (ii) to be in need of care or rehabilitation at the dispositional hearing. D.C.Code § 16–2301(6); see In re M. C. F., 293 A.2d at 877 (“Delinquency adjudication consists of two steps: First, a factfinding hearing must be held to determine whether the allegations of ......