State v. Hale
| Citation | 833 S.W.2d 65 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Appellant, v. Michael K. HALE, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1992 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Charles W. Burson, Atty. Gen. and Reporter, Amy L. Tarkington, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellant.
L. Thomas Austin, Lori Ann Lomangino, Dunlap, Howard L. Upchurch, Pikeville, for appellee.
This case presents an appeal by the State from the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals reversing the conviction of a juvenile tried in criminal court as an adult pursuant to T.C.A. Sec. 37-1-134 and -159.
On September 20, 1987, the defendant, then 16 years and 9 months of age, shot and killed another person. Upon a delinquency petition, the defendant was taken into custody by the juvenile court. On December 8, 1987, the juvenile court, upon notice and hearing pursuant to T.C.A. Sec. 37-1-134(a) and (b), found that the defendant should be transferred to the criminal court to be tried as an adult. On that same date, the case was presented to the grand jury and an indictment was returned charging the defendant with murder in the second degree by use of a firearm. Three days later, on December 11, 1987, the defendant filed a motion for a transfer hearing pursuant to T.C.A. Sec. 37-1-159(d), to determine if the criminal court would accept jurisdiction over the defendant. Almost ten months later, on October 6, 1988, the criminal court entered an order pursuant to T.C.A. Sec. 37-1-159(e)(2) certifying that it had taken jurisdiction over the defendant. Without further proceedings with regard to the transfer or indictment, the defendant was tried in the criminal court on March 28, 1989, and found guilty of the offense charged.
On motion for new trial, the defendant alleged that the judgment of conviction was void because he was indicted by the grand jury prior to the transfer hearing in criminal court. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the defendant waived the defect in the proceedings by failing to challenge the indictment prior to trial.
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that the criminal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction when the indictment was returned and, consequently, all proceedings in the criminal court including the indictment and conviction were void. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment.
The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over children alleged to be delinquent. T.C.A. Sec. 37-1-103(a)(1) (1991). However, upon petition, notice, and hearing, the juvenile court may transfer a child to the criminal court for trial as an adult. T.C.A. Sec. 37-1-134(a). Such a transfer "terminates the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over the child with respect to the delinquent acts alleged." T.C.A. Sec. 37-1-134(c). There is no interlocutory appeal from the judgment of the juvenile court transferring the child to criminal court. T.C.A. Sec. 37-1-159(d). However, Sec. 37-1-159(d) provides that a child may challenge the transfer to the criminal court for trial as an adult as follows:
[T]he criminal court, upon motion of the child filed within ten (10) days of the juvenile court order, shall hold a hearing as expeditiously as possible to determine whether it will accept jurisdiction over the child; provided, that if no motion is filed with the criminal court within the ten-day period, the child shall be subject to indictment, presentment or information for the offenses charged and thus subject to trial as an adult.
Based upon evidence presented at the transfer hearing, the criminal court will either (1) remand the child to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or (2) enter an order certifying that it has taken jurisdiction over the child. T.C.A. Sec. 37-1-159(e). That statute further provides that following the order certifying that it has taken jurisdiction over the child, the child shall be subject to indictment for the offenses charged. T.C.A. Sec. 37-1-159(e)(2).
The Court of Criminal Appeals relied upon State v. Alley, 594 S.W.2d 381 (Tenn.1980), in holding that the criminal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. In that case the issue was the age of the defendant. This Court found that the child was not "15 or more years of age" at the time the offense was committed and that, therefore, the criminal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The determinative difference between Alley and the case before the Court was discussed in Sawyers v. State, 814 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn.1991). Sawyers involved a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell v. State
...previously recognized that the juvenile court has original jurisdiction over children who are alleged to be delinquent. State v. Hale, 833 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Tenn.1992); see Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-134(a) (1996). The juvenile court transferred Howell to the criminal court to be tried as an adult ......
-
State v. Booker
...have exclusive original jurisdiction over children alleged to be delinquent. Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-103(a)(1) (2011); State v. Hale, 833 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Tenn. 1992). A juvenile court may transfer a child to be dealt with as an adult in the criminal court of competent jurisdiction after a pet......
-
State v. Marlowe
...and, because it was not raised in a pretrial motion, was waived by the defendant. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1); State v. Hale, 833 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Tenn. 1992) (holding that objection to grand jury indictment prior to criminal court hearing on transfer from juvenile court was waived by fail......
-
Blanton v. State
...date and time was ever set, as counsel testified that the petitioner waived his transfer hearing out of open court. See State v. Hale, 833 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Tenn. 1992) (holding that the entire transfer hearing required per section 37-2-134 is waivable). Furthermore, if a date and time were se......