State v. Williams

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: State v. Williams, 473 S.W.2d 382 (Mo. 1971)
• Decision Date: 08 November 1971
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 56426,56426,2
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Sidney A. WILLIAMS, Appellant

Page 382

473 S.W.2d 382

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Sidney A. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 56426.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Nov. 8, 1971.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Court En Banc Denied

Dec. 13, 1971.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, for appellant; Paul T. Miller, Executive Director, Willard B. Bunch, Chief Defender, Kansas City, of counsel.

STOCKARD, Commissioner.

By appellant's sole point on this appeal he challenges the constitutionality of § 211.071 of the Juvenile Code, §§ 211.011 to 211.431. All statutory references are to RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.

Appellant was charged and found guilty of an armed robbery which he committed when sixteen years and approximately ten months of age. Therefore, he was a 'child' within the definition set forth in § 211.021. After a hearing pursuant to § 211.071, which is not challenged on this appeal, the juvenile court determined that appellant was 'not a proper subject to be dealt with' under the Juvenile Code and directed that he should be 'prosecuted under the general law' as provided for in § 211.071.

In its parts pertinent to this appeal § 211.071 provides as follows:

'In the discretion of the judge of the juvenile court, when any petition under Sections 211.011 to 211.431 alleges that a child of the age of fourteen years or older has committed an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult, * * * the petition may be dismissed and such child * * * may be prosecuted under the general law, whenever the judge after receiving the report of the investigation required by Sections 211.011 to 211.431 and hearing evidence finds that such child * * * is not a proper subject to be dealt with' under the provisions of the Juvenile Code.

Appellant asserts that § 211.071 is invalid because 'it provides no standards for determining that he was not a proper subject to be dealt with' under the Juvenile Code.

We first note that the Juvenile Code is a complete law, and each section is to be read and construed in relation to the others. Mashak v. Poelker, Mo.App., 356 S.W.2d 713. In the event § 211.071 were to be held unconstitutional, the question then presented would be, what would be the effect of such a holding on the entire Juvenile Code? Unless this court could say that the Legislature would have enacted the remaining portions of the Code without § 211.071, the entire Code must fall as invalid. State ex rel. State Highway Commission of Mo. v. Curtis, 365 Mo 447, 283 S.W.2d 458. This we could not do. It would be most speculative for this court to conclude that the Legislature would have enacted the other portions of the Juvenile Code, at least as now worded, if a child nearing the age to be classified an adult who had committed a serious crime could not be tried as an adult under the general law when it was in the 'best interest of the state' to do so. In the event the Juvenile Code should be held to be void, in the absence of a statute providing for other treatment, appellant would be tried for his offense under the general law. It would therefore appear that if appellant were successful in his contention on this appeal, he would be subject to the precise treatment of which he now complains; that is, to be tried under the general law. We deem it advisable, however, not to rule this appeal on the above rule of law. Instead, we conclude that § 211.071 is...