Wolf v. State

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SHEPARD; McFADDEN, J., and SCOGGIN; DONALDSON; BISTLINE; With Kent well in mind
• Citation: Wolf v. State, 99 Idaho 476, 583 P.2d 1011 (Idaho 1978)
• Decision Date: 27 July 1978
• Docket Number: Nos. 12633,12634,s. 12633
• Parties: In the Matter of the Interest of Steven Wolf, a child under 18 years of age. Steven WOLF, Appellant, v. The STATE of Idaho, Respondent. In the Matter of the Interest of Rory Brooks, a child under 18 years of age. Rory BROOKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

Page 1011

583 P.2d 1011

99 Idaho 476

In the Matter of the Interest of Steven Wolf, a child under 18 years of age.

Steven WOLF, Appellant, v. The STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

In the Matter of the Interest of Rory Brooks, a child under 18 years of age.

Rory BROOKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

Nos. 12633, 12634.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

July 27, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 19, 1978.

Charles F. McDevitt, McDevitt, Pursley & Webb, Boise, for appellants.

Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., David H. Leroy, Ada County Pros. Atty., Boise, for respondent. SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

This is a consolidated appeal from orders waiving juvenile jurisdiction as to appellants Wolf and Brooks, who are juveniles and accused of committing first degree murder. The effect of the waiver orders is that the State may prosecute the appellants as adults. We affirm.

One Enrico Flory was murdered on June 3, 1976, at which time appellant Brooks was 17 years of age and appellant Wolf was 15 years of age. Appellants were charged with that murder. Petitions requesting the waiver of juvenile jurisdiction as to appellants in connection with these charges were filed on September 9, 1976. Separate hearings as to each appellant were had on the waiver petitions. At each of those hearings the county prosecutor testified that there was probable cause to believe that the appellants had committed the murder. The magistrate held that the right to cross-examine did not attach on the determination of probable cause in the waiver setting, and hence, appellants' counsel was not permitted to cross-examine the prosecutor. Thereafter, the magistrate found probable cause.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered by the magistrate in separate orders waiving juvenile jurisdiction. See State v. Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972). The magistrate concluded that each appellant was an anti-social sociopath, but not mentally incompetent. See State v. Powers, 96 Idaho 833, 537 P.2d 1369 (1975), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1089, 96 S.Ct. 881, 47 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976); State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430, 462 P.2d 729 (1969); State v. White, 93 Idaho 153, 456 P.2d 797 (1969). The magistrate also concluded that the prognosis for improvement of each of the appellants was unsatisfactory and that the condition of each of the appellants would likely continue beyond the age of 21 rendering the appellants dangerous to the public beyond that age. Juvenile jurisdiction for rehabilitative treatment terminates by law when the person reaches age 21. I.C. § 16-1805. See Schroeder, Developments in the Enforcement of Parental and State Standards in Juvenile Proceedings, 10 Idaho L.Rev. 153 (1974). See also Note, Problem of Age and Jurisdiction in the Juvenile Court, 19 Vand.L.Rev. 833, 837-49 (1966). The magistrate concluded that each had shown an escalating propensity for violent activity. Each appellant had previous juvenile adjudications of record and in the interval between the murder of which they are accused and the filing of the petitions, appellants had participated together in rape and two kidnappings. The magistrate also concluded that each appellant had failed to respond to rehabilitation, that they were emotionally and mentally mature, that they could not benefit from juvenile facilities available in Idaho and that they would likely disrupt the rehabilitation of other juveniles in those facilities.

As to appellant Wolf alone, the magistrate held that I.C. § 16-1806(1)(a) was in conflict with I.C. § 18-216. Section 16-1806(1)(a) did not authorize the waiver of jurisdiction over a juvenile who was between the ages of 14 and 16 at the time of the act of which he is accused. I.C. § 18-216, however, authorizes the waiver of jurisdiction over any juvenile between 14 and 18. In ordering the waiver of juvenile jurisdiction over appellant Wolf as a 15 year old, the magistrate held that I.C. § 18-216 was the controlling statute. The magistrate further held that I.C. § 16-1806(1)(a) was an unconstitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of the district court relying on Idaho Const., Art. 5, § 20; State v. Lindsey, 78 Idaho 241, 300 P.2d 491 (1956); and Idaho Const., Art. 5, § 13; State v. McCoy, 94 Idaho 236, 486 P.2d 247 (1971).

Those orders of the magistrate waiving juvenile jurisdiction were appealed to the district court. Without reaching the merits, the district court remanded the cause for further proceedings in light of an interstate agreement between Idaho and California providing for the transfer of Idaho juveniles to California juvenile treatment facilities. The magistrate's original orders were predicated in part on the lack of adequate facilities in Idaho which would provide both the maximum security in which to confine violent juveniles and treatment programs which gave a realistic promise for the rehabilitation of such juveniles. Under the interstate agreement, the facilities in California to which Idaho juveniles could be transferred offer both maximum security confinement and treatment for violent juveniles.

Following remand from the district court, the magistrate considered that alternative but reaffirmed his original waiver of jurisdiction orders and gave two reasons therefor. The magistrate emphasized the appellants' unsatisfactory prognosis for rehabilitation and the probability they would remain dangerous beyond the age of 21 at which time they would be released from juvenile confinement. Additionally, the magistrate expressed concern that California could refuse to accept the appellants, could return them to Idaho on 15 days notice or cancel the entire agreement on 30 days notice. Should any of these contingencies occur, the problem of the inadequacy of Idaho juvenile facilities would again be posed. We note that under the YRA, I.C. § 16-1806(7), once juvenile jurisdiction is exercised, it is no longer possible to transfer the juvenile for adult prosecution. State v. Gibbs, supra. Once a juvenile adjudication is made, double jeopardy attaches to preclude adult criminal prosecution. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975). Therefore it is not possible to commit a juvenile to juvenile jurisdiction and in the event that fails then transfer him to adult jurisdiction. Whitebread & Batey, Transfer Between Courts: Proposals of the Juvenile Justice Standards Project, 63 Va.L.Rev. 221, 227 (1977).

From those orders of the magistrate reaffirming his previous orders waiving juvenile jurisdiction, appeals were taken to the district court. The district court affirmed as to appellant Brooks in a brief opinion. The district court also affirmed as to appellant Wolf, but in so doing rejected the magistrate's constitutional conclusions regarding I.C. § 16-1806. Rather, the district court found that I.C. § 16-1806 had been impliedly repealed to the extent that it was inconsistent with I.C. § 18-216 and thus waiver of jurisdiction as to appellant Wolf was affirmed.

From the decisions of the district court affirming the magistrate orders waiving juvenile jurisdiction, these appeals result. Each appellant assigns as error the magistrate's ruling permitting the prosecutor to testify as to the existence of probable cause without being subject to cross-examination. Each appellant also assigns as error the alleged failure of the magistrate's division of the district court to recognize that appellants have a right to rehabilitative treatment as juveniles. Each appellant assigns the order waiving juvenile jurisdiction as error. Appellant Wolf asserts the order waiving juvenile jurisdiction as to himself as erroneous since he was 15 at the time of the alleged murder. Finally, Wolf assigns as error the magistrate's refusal to grant a continuance so he might seek a writ of prohibition in the district court which would prohibit the magistrate from conducting the waiver proceedings.

I.

We turn first to the question of the necessity of finding probable cause as an element of the waiver hearing. While a number of jurisdictions do require a probable cause finding in conjunction with the waiver process, Rudstein, Double Jeopardy in Juvenile Proceedings, 14 William & Mary L.Rev., 266, 298-99 (1972), Idaho does not. We are not unique in our position. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 536 n.16, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975). As to a distinction on the requirement of showing probable cause depending upon type of offenses, See Institute of Judicial Administration and American Bar Ass'n Joint Comm'n on Juvenile Justice Standards, Transfer Between Courts § 2.2(A)(1) (Proposed Draft 1976).

The function of a probable cause determination at the waiver stage is not clear. It would even appear to be duplicitous since a juvenile will receive a prompt determination of that question regardless of how the waiver issue might be resolved. When a juvenile court waives jurisdiction, an adult court must still conduct a preliminary hearing at which probable cause must be determined. I.C.R. 51. On the other hand, if the juvenile court does not order jurisdiction waived, a probable cause determination is made by the juvenile court as to whether and how to proceed on the juvenile petition. I.J.R. 17 and 20. While various considerations arguably militate for the incorporation of the probable cause standard at a waiver hearing, such is not required by either the Idaho or federal constitutions.

It is argued, however, that the magistrate did in fact make a probable cause inquiry in this case and found probable cause to believe the appellants murdered Enrico Flory. Whether or not a probable cause inquiry is constitutionally mandated, it may be contended that considerations of fundamental fairness require that the accused be given the opportunity to cross-examine those who present evidence against them. We disagree. The probable cause hearing did no more than establish that the appellants were accused of murder. The nature of the...