In the Matter of C.S., 12647.

• Decision Date: 13 October 1977
• Docket Number: No. 12647.,12647.
• Citation: 384 A.2d 407
• Parties: In the Matter of C. S., Appellant.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

Page 407

384 A.2d 407

In the Matter of C. S., Appellant.

No. 12647.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued October 12, 1977.

Decided October 13, 1977.

Roger M. Gregory, Jr., for appellant.

Michael J. Dowd, Jr., Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., with whom John R. Risher, Jr., Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before KERN, MACK, and FERREN, Associate Judges.

FERREN, Associate Judge:

On October 7, 1977, the District of Columbia filed a petition against appellant C.S., age 16, in the Family Division of Superior Court charging obstruction of justice, D.C. Code 1973, § 22-703(a). Appellant allegedly had used "threats and force" against a government witness in a second-degree murder case pending against appellant in the Criminal Division of Superior Court.

At a hearing on the same day, October 7, to determine whether there was probable cause to place appellant in detention prior to a factfinding hearing, D.C.Code 1973, § 16-2312, the court found that such detention was required "to protect the person or property of others," D.C.Code 1973, § 16-2310(a)(1), and ordered appellant into custody at the Oak Hill facility.¹

Appellant filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to D.C.Code 1973, § 16-2327 claiming several irregularities, only one of which needs consideration here. Appellant claims that the Family Division does not have jurisdiction to receive the petition, let alone jurisdiction to detain him. We agree.

I.

In the pending second-degree murder case, the District government has not proceeded against appellant as a "child"² by way of a delinquency petition in the Family Division of Superior Court. Instead, the United States government has assumed responsibility by charging him as an adult in the Criminal Division. See Pendergrast v. United States, D.C.App., 332 A.2d 919, 923 (1975). Because of this criminal proceeding we have to consider whether, under our statute, the Family Division retains — or has lost — jurisdiction over subsequent delinquency charges against appellant.

The contention that the Family Division has lost jurisdiction is based on an analogous statutory provision dealing with the discretionary transfer of juveniles from the Family Division to the adult Criminal Division. D.C.Code 1973, § 16-2307, provides, where relevant, that the Corporation Counsel, on behalf of the District government, may file a motion requesting transfer of a child for criminal prosecution as follows:

(a) Within seven days (excluding Sundays and legal holidays), of the filing of a delinquency petition, or later for good cause shown, and prior to a factfinding hearing on the petition, the Corporation Counsel, following consultation with the Director of Social Services, may file a motion, supported by a statement of facts, requesting transfer of the child for criminal prosecution, if —

(1) the child was fifteen or more years of age at the time of the conduct charged, and is alleged to have committed an act which would constitute a felony if committed by an adult;

* * *

(h) Transfer of a child for criminal prosecution terminates the jurisdiction of the Division over the child with respect to any subsequent delinquent act; except that jurisdiction of the Division over the child is restored if (1) the criminal prosecution is terminated other than by a plea of guilty, a verdict of guilty, or a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, and (2) at the time of the termination of the criminal prosecution no indictment or information has been filed for criminal prosecution for an offense alleged to have been committed by the child subsequent to transfer. [Emphasis added.]

The question, therefore, is whether appellant's adult criminal prosecution for second-degree murder by virtue of § 16-2301(3)(A) is a "transfer of a child for criminal prosecution" within the meaning of § 16-2307(h). If it is, then the Family Division automatically is deprived of jurisdiction over the obstruction of justice charge because it involves a "subsequent delinquent act."

II.

The government contends that § 16-2307(h) pertains only to actual, ad hoc transfers for criminal prosecution pursuant to the elaborate hearing procedure in § 16-2307(a)-(g). If follows from the government's argument that any 16-year-old who is deemed subject to criminal prosecution by virtue of § 16-2301(3)(A) would remain subject to Family Division jurisdiction for subsequent delinquent acts, such as the obstruction of justice alleged here.

We disagree with the government's position. Under its analysis, a 15-year-old individual, who could only be prosecuted criminally upon a "transfer", § 16-2307(a)(1), must — if transferred — remain subject to the Criminal Division for all subsequent offenses of any kind, pursuant to § 16-2307(h), whereas a 16- or 17-year-old individual, who is prosecuted in the Criminal Division for murder, or for any of the other offenses listed in § 16-2301(3)(A), must remain subject to the Family Division for all subsequent unlisted offenses (unless, of course, the government seeks a transfer for a later, unlisted felony charge). We do not believe that such an anomalous result is intended. We conclude, rather, that § 16-2301(3)(A), by deeming an individual not to be a "child" when certain serious offenses are charged, in effect has decreed, by operation of law, a "transfer" of that individual to the Criminal Division, within the meaning of § 16-2307(h), with the consequent impact on Family Division jurisdiction.

III.

The legislative history on this point is inconclusive. Prior to the District of Columbia Reorganization Act, Pub.L. 91-358, 84 Stat. 523, adopted in 1970, "the Juvenile Court automatically acquired jurisdiction over anyone under 18 charged with an offense, since the term `child' then was defined simply as `a person under 18 years of age.'" Pendergrast v. United States, supra at 923. The only basis for withdrawing jurisdiction over a juvenile matter from the Juvenile Court (now the Family Division) was a provision for ad hoc "waiver of jurisdiction" in favor of criminal prosecution of felonies committed by juveniles age 16 and over. D.C.Code 1967, § 11-1553. In 1970, upon adoption of the Reorganization Act, supra, Congress amended § 16-2301 to redefine "child" more narrowly and thus contract Family Division jurisdiction. See note 2, supra. At that time Congress also lowered the minimum age for criminal prosecution of juveniles from 16 to 15 upon "transfer" (formerly "waiver") to the new Criminal Division. D.C.Code 1973, § 16-2307.

These provisions were adopted as part of a new juvenile code, which was among the many subjects considered by Congress in 1969-70 in its comprehensive effort directed at crime in the District of Columbia. The House and the Senate were far apart in their approaches to juveniles. By the end of 1969, the Senate had passed a bill, S. 2981, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969), including provisions (after amendment in committee) for (1) adult prosecution of offenders, age 16 or over, when they are charged with certain serious felonies and have a record of a previous offense since age 15; (2) lowering of the age from 16 to 15 for ad hoc transfer of juveniles for adult prosecution, with the burden on the government to show no reasonable prospect for rehabilitation under Family Division jurisdiction; and (3) termination of Family Division jurisdiction over subsequent offenses upon such transfer for adult prosecution, provided that Family Division jurisdiction would be restored if the adult prosecution did not result in a guilty or insanity verdict (and no other criminal charges were pending at the time of transfer).

The House bill, H.R. 16196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), in contrast, provided for (1) adult prosecution of first offenders, age 16 or over, charged with a wider range of felonies than in the Senate bill; (2) lowering of the age from 16 to 15 for ad hoc transfers of juveniles for adult prosecution, with the burden on the juvenile to avoid transfer by showing a reasonable prospect for rehabilitation if Family Division jurisdiction were retained; and (3) termination of Family Division jurisdiction over subsequent offenses upon such transfer for adult prosecution, without further provision for restoration of Family Division jurisdiction if the adult prosecution failed.

The resulting legislation was a compromise tilted in favor of the House version of the first two provisions enumerated above and of the Senate approach to the third provision. D.C.Code 1973, § 16-2301(3)(A), § 16-2307(a), (d)-(e), (h).

The conference report that revealed the proposed compromise evoked strong criticism on the Senate floor. 116 Cong.Rec. 25048-49 (1970) (remarks by Sen. Goodell); 116 Cong.Rec. 25432-33 (1970) (remarks by Sen. Javits). It was in the context of defending the conference report that Sen. Tydings, the Senate manager of the legislation, made the only reference to the issue before us that we have been able to find in the legislative history. He submitted a statement for the record that prosecution of a juvenile as an adult, by virtue of the new definition of "child," § 16-2301(3)(A), would have "no bearing on his trial on subsequent charges, even if he is convicted." 116 Cong. Rec. 24346 (1970).³ Family Division jurisdiction would remain for all subsequent offenses, absent a court order under the ad hoc transfer provisions.⁴

There were no other comments on this issue in the committee reports, in the conference report, or on the floor of either house. Despite the intense debate both on the definition of "child" and on the ad hoc transfer provisions, no one except Sen. Tydings sought to tie them together with respect to jurisdiction over subsequent offenses.⁵ We do not believe, under the particular circumstances of this legislative battle, that this silence should be construed to imply concurrence with Sen. Tydings' one comment on the Senate side of the debate. The better...