Rudolph v. State
| Decision Date | 06 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 631 |
| Citation | 286 Ala. 189,238 So.2d 542 |
| Parties | Darryl RUDOLPH v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James D. Sullivan, Mobile, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Charles H. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Three petitions were filed in the Juvenile Court of Mobile County charging appellant a boy of 15, with various acts of delinquency, including commission of the crimes of arson, burglary and grand larceny. A hearing was held in the Juvenile Court on these petitions and that court determined that the complaints were true and committed the appellant to the Alabama Industrial School for Negro Children.
Thereupon the appellant appealed to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, in Equity, under the provisions of Title 13, § 362. This statute provides that such appeals are preferred cases in the Equity Court, directs a trial de novo and gives the Chancellor directions to enter such judgment as shall seem just and for the best interests of the child.
From start to finish, the case was handled as a criminal prosecution for the felonies of grand larceny, arson, and burglary. Seven witnesses testified on behalf of the prosecution. At the conclusion of this evidence, the defendant moved to exclude the evidence, which motion was denied, and the court, noting, 'This case is no different than any other', entered a decree in part as follows:
'* * * it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the appeal de nova (sic) from Juvenile Court, Mobile County, Alabama, in this cause, be, and hereby is, denied, and that the defendant Darryl Rudolph, be, and hereby is, found guilty of arson and burgulary (sic) and hereby remands said child to the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court for supervision and care under the terms of the judgment of the Circuit Court to be committed to the Alabama Industrial School at Mt. Meggs (sic), Alabama, for a period of not more than two (2) years.'
This appeal is from that decree, appellant stating in brief that
These proceedings violate the very principles upon which the statutes establishing the juvenile court system in Alabama were founded. As noted by Judge Edward McLaughlin and Professor Clinton McGee in the Alabama Law Review, 'The theory is that a child who has run afoul of the law, if under the statutory age, lacks the otherwise necessary criminal intent and should not be tried as a criminal in a criminal court and under ordinary criminal proceedings but should have his case heard in a special court of equity.' Juvenile Court Procedure, 17 Ala.Law Rev. 226.
The statutes themselves provide that the child in a case such as this is not a criminal and acquires no criminal record, stating, 'No child shall be denominated nor held to be a criminal by reason of any such adjudication (by the Juvenile Court or the Equity Court in a trial de novo), nor shall such adjudication be held to be or denominated a conviction'. Title 13, § 378.
In this case, a boy of 15 was adjudicated a delinquent in the Juvenile Court. He appealed from that adjudication to the Circuit Court, in Equity. It is glaringly apparent that that court misunderstood its role and proceeded to prosecute the child for the crimes of arson, burglary and grand larceny.
The issues properly before the Equity Court in an appeal de novo from the Juvenile Court obviously are the same issues which were before the Juvenile Court. The very word de novo itself means anew, afresh, trying anew the matters involved in the original hearing as if they had not been heard before and as if no decision had been previously entered.--Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed.
Under our statute (Title 13, § 354) the proceedings, in the Juvenile Court are had to determine whether the child so charged has committed the unlawful acts alleged in the petition. If the Juvenile Court so finds, then it '* * * may take testimony for the purpose of inquiring into the habits, surroundings,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Civil Rights ex rel. Johnson v. Silver Dollar Cafe
...Div., 24 Or.App. 323, 545 P.2d 613 (1976); In re Reassignment of Hayes, 261 N.C. 616, 135 S.E.2d 645 (1964); Rudolph v. Alabama, 286 Ala. 189, 238 So.2d 542 (1970); In re Poole, 136 Vt. 242, 388 A.2d 422 (1978); Pinkett v. Maryland, 30 Md.App. 458, 352 A.2d 358 (1976); Young v. Dep't of Env......
-
Breed v. Jones 8212 1995
...a finding of delinquency before the transfer of a juvenile to adult court. Ala.Code, Tit. 13, § 364 (1959). (See Rudolph v. State, 286 Ala. 189, 238 So.2d 542 (1970); W.Va.Code Ann. § 49—5 14 17 See, e.g., Fla.Stat.Ann. § 39.09(2)(g) (1974); Tenn.Code Ann. § 37—234(c) (Supp.1974); Wyo.Stat.......
-
Parker v. State
...determine (1) that the child is delinquent and (2) cannot be made to lead a correct life or be properly disciplined. Rudolph v. State, 286 Ala. 189, 238 So.2d 542 (1970). On April 30, 1976, the county court of Morgan County, Juvenile Division, heard evidence on the petition of the state to ......
-
Franklin v. Woodmere at the Lake
...entered.” ’ Neal v. First Alabama Bank of Huntsville, N.A., 440 So.2d 1111, 1112 (Ala.Civ.App.1983) (quoting Rudolph v. State, 286 Ala. 189, 190, 238 So.2d 542, 543 (1970)) (emphasis omitted).”Petersen v. Woodland Homes of Huntsville, Inc., 959 So.2d 135, 139 (Ala.Civ.App.2006). Furthermore......