Chapter 419C

 

      Chapter 419C

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

 

Under former similar statutes

 

      56 OLR 428 (1977); 16 WLR 417 (1979)

 

      419C.005

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Jurisdiction depends on the defendant’s age at the time judicial proceedings are initiated, not at the time of the alleged offense. State v. Watchman, 20 Or App 709, 533 P2d 361 (1975), Sup Ct review denied. But see 41 Or App 469, 599 P2d 1160 (1979)

 

      Where young age of juvenile prevents placement in correctional facility, state need not prove criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. K., 26 Or App 451, 554 P2d 180 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

 

      A juvenile court adjudication of whether or not a child committed acts which would be a criminal violation if committed by an adult must necessarily include an adjudication of all affirmative defenses that would be available to an adult being tried for the same criminal violation. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. L.J., 26 Or App 461, 552 P2d 1322 (1976)

 

      A juvenile court retains jurisdiction until the juvenile reaches the age of 21 only over the same matter which caused the juvenile to be initially made a ward of the court. State v. Porter, 29 Or App 67, 562 P2d 566 (1977)

 

      Absent evidence of prejudice to his defense, defendant was not denied due process by fact that juvenile proceedings against him were terminated immediately before his 18th birthday so that complaint could be brought against him as an adult. State v. Richmond, 31 Or App 553, 570 P2d 1014 (1977). But see 41 Or App 469, 599 P2d 1160 (1979)

 

      Juvenile court jurisdiction on basis of offense committed in other state does not contravene Art. I, sect. 20 of Oregon Constitution or Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. State ex rel Juvenile Department v. W., 34 Or App 437, 578 P2d 824 (1978)

 

      Exclusive jurisdiction of juvenile court over persons under 18 does not vest jurisdiction in juvenile court of contempt proceedings arising out of juvenile’s refusal to testify before grand jury. State v. Tripp, 36 Or App 141, 583 P2d 591 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Where juvenile court properly obtained jurisdiction over defendant, state could not circumvent juvenile court by indicting defendant in circuit court after its remand motions had been denied. State v. Thornton, 41 Or App 469, 599 P2d 1160 (1979)

 

      Where district attorney delayed prosecution of a juvenile offender until he reached 18 in order to avoid a remand proceeding, the offender could initially be prosecuted only in juvenile court. State v. Scurlock, 286 Or 277, 593 P2d 1159 (1979)

 

      Juvenile court does not have jurisdiction over juvenile proceeding to which Warm Springs Indian is a party or over substantive crimes which are alleged acts of juvenile delinquency committed on Warm Springs Reservation. United States v. E.K., 471 F Supp 924 (1979)

 

      Detention of juvenile pending adjudication of merits of case constitutes seizure which requires showing of probable cause under U.S and Oregon Constitutions; prompt judicial determination of probable cause is prerequisite to extended detention of juvenile pending adjudication, and determination that there was “reason to believe” child committed alleged acts was insufficient to satisfy probable cause requirement. Roberts v. Mills, 290 Or 441, 622 P2d 1094 (1981)

 

      Where appellant was under 18 and had not otherwise complied with the statutory emancipation procedures, juvenile court did not lack jurisdiction over her solely because she was married. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 55 Or App 951, 640 P2d 675 (1982)

 

      Absent remand from juvenile court, circuit court did not have jurisdiction to accept guilty plea of defendant who was not yet 18 when taken into custody and indicted. Delaney v. State of Oregon, 58 Or App 442, 648 P2d 1302 (1982)

 

      Defense of incapacity due to immaturity set forth in ORS 161.290 is not applicable in juvenile proceeding. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Wicks, 97 Or App 390, 776 P2d 582 (1989)

 

      Jurisdictional phase of juvenile delinquency proceeding is not criminal proceeding; therefore no right to jury trial exists. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Reynolds, 317 Or 560, 857 P2d 842 (1993)

 

In general

 

      Juvenile court has jurisdiction to make post-adjudication dismissal of delinquency petition. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Dreyer, 328 Or 332, 976 P2d 1123 (1999)

 

      Conduct of juvenile may be criminal violation notwithstanding that juvenile is not subjected to criminal responsibility for violation. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Fitch, 192 Or App 56, 84 P3d 190 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

 

      1995 amendments extending period of juvenile court control over youth offenders do not apply to youth committing delinquent act prior to effective date of amendments. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Nicholls, 192 Or App 604, 87 P3d 680 (2004)

 

      419C.010

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Exclusive jurisdiction of juvenile court over persons under 18 does not vest jurisdiction in juvenile court of contempt proceedings arising out of juvenile’s refusal to testify before grand jury. State v. Tripp, 36 Or App 141, 583 P2d 591 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

 

      419C.013

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Venue is not material element of proof in juvenile delinquency proceeding. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 126 Or App 646, 870 P2d 240 (1994)

 

      419C.080

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Where child is taken into custody for curfew violation, there is no requirement that child be within category otherwise allowing temporary custody. State v. Stevens, 89 Or App 467, 749 P2d 613 (1988)

 

      419C.094

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Terminology change to “protective custody” did not work substantive change from term “temporary custody” found in former ORS 419.579. Brown v. Zenon, 133 Or App 291, 891 P2d 666 (1995)

 

      Unless state intentionally delays bringing charges to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction, defendant who was juvenile at time of alleged offense and adult when taken into custody is treated as adult. State v. Davis, 197 Or App 246, 106 P3d 160 (2005), Sup Ct review denied

 

      419C.097

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Violation of parental notification requirement is not determinative of whether a juvenile’s confession is voluntary but is a factor to be considered in determining voluntariness. State v. Raiford, 7 Or App 202, 490 P2d 206 (1971)

 

      419C.130

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Violation of police station detention time limit is not determinative of whether a juvenile’s confession is voluntary but is a factor to be considered in determining voluntariness. State v. Raiford, 7 Or App 202, 490 P2d 206 (1971)

 

      419C.239

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Juvenile department may petition for juvenile court adjudication only if informal disposition agreement is formally extended or revoked during six-month period of agreement. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Harkness, 114 Or App 440, 836 P2d 144 (1992)

 

      Juvenile department must extend or modify informal disposition agreement in writing and changes must be signed by child. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Harkness, 114 Or App 440, 836 P2d 144 (1992)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

 

Under former similar statute

      16 WLR 421 (1979)

 

      419C.261

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Juvenile court has jurisdiction to make post-adjudication dismissal of delinquency petition. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Dreyer, 328 Or 332, 976 P2d 1123 (1999)

 

      Power of juvenile court to dismiss or set aside adjudication does not permit issuing retroactive dismissal order. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Dreyer, 328 Or 332, 976 P2d 1123 (1999)

 

      Court has authority to dismiss petition under this section if youth was under 25 years of age when motion to dismiss petition was filed. State v. C.E.B., 254 Or App 353, 295 P3d 118 (2012)

 

      419C.340

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Where juvenile is charged with crime requiring juvenile to be tried as adult, juvenile remand proceeding is not required. State v. Lawler, 144 Or App 456, 927 P2d 99 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

 

      419C.349

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      No particular formalities are required for the hearing. State v. Weidner, 6 Or App 317, 484 P2d 844, 487 P2d 1385 (1971)

 

      The primary issue in the remand hearing is the prognosis for rehabilitation of a child if he is found to be in the jurisdiction of the court and subject to the rehabilitative programs available to the juvenile court. State v. Weidner, 6 Or App 317, 484 P2d 844, 487 P2d 1385 (1971)

 

      An Oregon juvenile court may waive its jurisdiction over an Oregon juvenile who has committed an offense in another state, but the court does not have the power to transfer jurisdiction over the juvenile to a court in another state. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Casteel, 18 Or App 70, 523 P2d 1039 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Evidence of underlying offense and manner of its commission may be relevant to whether child is amenable to rehabilitation in juvenile system. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Dahl, 37 Or App 839, 588 P2d 132 (1978)

 

      Where juvenile court denied motions to remand defendant, state could not circumvent juvenile court by indicting defendant in circuit court. State v. Thornton, 41 Or App 469, 599 P2d 1160 (1979)

 

      Where district attorney intentionally delayed prosecution of juvenile offender until he was 18 in order to avoid remand, juvenile court retained initial jurisdiction over offender. State v. Scurlock, 286 Or 277, 593 P2d 1159 (1979)

 

      Where defendant, Warm Springs Indian, was charged with federal offenses over which adult court of Oregon has no jurisdiction, he could not be remanded to state court. United States v. E.K., 471 F Supp 924 (1979)

 

      Juvenile court may order psychological or psychiatric evaluations for use in making decision to remand child to adult court. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Engeweiler, 114 Or App 575, 836 P2d 157 (1992)

 

 

In general

      Requirement that youth possess “sufficient sophistication and maturity to appreciate the nature and quality of the conduct involved” means that, in order to authorize waiver of youth under ORS 419C.352 or under this section, juvenile court must find, as factual determination, that youth possesses sufficient adult-like intellectual, social and emotional capabilities to have adult-like understanding of significance of youth’s conduct, including wrongfulness of that conduct and consequences for youth, victim and others. State v. J.C.N.-V., 359 Or 559, 380 P3d 248 (2016)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

 

Under former similar statute

      29 WLR 689 (1993)

 

In general

      75 OLR 1223 (1996); 52 WLR 61 (2015)

 

      419C.352

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Requirement that youth possess “sufficient sophistication and maturity to appreciate the nature and quality of the conduct involved” means that, in order to authorize waiver of youth under ORS 419C.349 or this section, juvenile court must find, as factual determination, that youth possesses sufficient adult-like intellectual, social and emotional capabilities to have adult-like understanding of significance of youth’s conduct, including wrongfulness of that conduct and consequences for youth, victim and others. State v. J.C.N.-V., 359 Or 559, 380 P3d 248 (2016)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      29 WLR 689 (1993)

 

      419C.355

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Child’s assent to being waived to adult court does not eliminate duty of court to make findings of fact supporting waiver. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Heising, 29 Or App 903, 565 P2d 1105 (1977)

 

      Where oral findings demonstrated proper consideration of statutory factors, failure to make specific and detailed written findings did not invalidate remand. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Cole, 280 Or 173, 570 P2d 365 (1977); State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Brown, 37 Or App 155, 586 P2d 374 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Order demonstrating that judge actually considered statutory criteria meets requirement that court make detailed, written findings of fact. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Reed, 124 Or App 495, 863 P2d 1291 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

 

      419C.358

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      29 WLR 689 (1993)

 

      419C.361

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

 

Under former similar statute

      29 WLR 689 (1993)

 

In general

      75 OLR 1223 (1996)

 

      419C.364

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Charges closely related to charge supporting waiver are included within scope of waiver, notwithstanding failure to order future cases involving child to be waived. State v. Kuhlmann, 75 Or App 683, 707 P2d 623 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 52 WLR 61 (2015)

 

      419C.370

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Action initiated in district court against 17-year-old for game law violation was properly retained by district court where: blanket remand order was in effect; notice had been given to juvenile court and juvenile court did not assert jurisdiction. State v. Ledford, 47 Or App 1109, 615 P2d 1161 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Juvenile department is not prohibited from filing case relating to use or operation of motor vehicle directly in juvenile court, if department thinks juvenile court would be better forum. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 55 Or App 951, 640 P2d 675 (1982)

 

      Provision for remand of child 16 years of age or older did not prohibit blanket remand of traffic cases involving juveniles under age of 16 and such remand did not violate Article I, section 20 of Oregon Constitution, or Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Constitution. State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Strickland, 84 Or App 272, 733 P2d 932 (1987)

 

      419C.400

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      ORCP 51D, allowing advisory jury in actions not triable to jury, does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings. State ex rel Upham v. McElligott, 326 Or 547, 956 P2d 179 (1998)

 

      419C.411

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Right of allocution under section 11, Article I of Oregon Constitution, does not apply at dispositional phase of juvenile proceeding. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Leach, 202 Or App 632, 123 P3d 347 (2005)

 

      419C.446

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      “Including but not limited to” language does not allow imposition of probation supervision fee because fee is not condition of same kind as listed conditions. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Ware, 144 Or App 614, 927 P2d 1114 (1996)

 

      Court may impose conditions of probation that are unrelated to conduct giving rise to jurisdiction over youth. State ex rel Juvenile Department v. Rial, 181 Or App 249, 46 P3d 217 (2002)

 

      419C.450

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Where child’s conduct would constitute criminal activity if committed by adult and conduct caused loss to victim, it was not necessary that specific loss to victim be alleged in petition or be adjudicated by court before trial court could order child to pay restitution. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Dickerson, 100 Or App 95, 784 P2d 1121 (1990); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Z.D.B., 238 Or App 377, 242 P3d 714 (2010)

 

In general

 

      “Victim” includes insurance carriers and Criminal Injuries Compensation Account. State v. E.V., 240 Or App 298, 246 P3d 78 (2010), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Right to trial by jury under Article I, section 17, Oregon Constitution does not apply to this section, which serves compensatory purpose and provides enforceable right to restitution, but does not create private right of action for damages against juvenile defendant. State v. N.R.L, 354 Or 222, 311 P3d 510 (2013)

 

      419C.453

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Court may not order youth who attains age 18 prior to adjudication to serve sentence in adult facility. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Thompson, 176 Or App 27, 29 P3d 1221 (2001)

 

      Where juvenile court issued condition of probation that delegated authority to juvenile department to punish probation violations with detention, condition was invalid because only juvenile court may order detention as punishment for probation violation and may impose detention only after hearing. State v. B.H.C., 288 Or App 120, 404 P3d 1110 (2017)

 

 

      419C.473

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Court erred in imposing blood draw as probation condition for act not constituting felony. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Wingerter, 126 Or App 286, 868 P2d 1346 (1994)

 

      Drawing of blood samples from convicted or adjudicated prisoners for future DNA identification purposes does not constitute unreasonable search or seizure. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Orozco, 129 Or App 148, 878 P2d 432 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Drawing blood sample for DNA registry does not interfere with treatment of child. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Mitchell, 130 Or App 134, 880 P2d 958 (1994), aff’d 325 Or 479, 940 P2d 518 (1997)

 

      419C.495

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Since there is no statutory authority for licensing of such institutions and evidence indicated Rosemont School was licensed as residential treatment center under ORS chapter 443, it was not “private institution operated as a training school for children requiring secure custody.” Shrewsbury v. Larson, 52 Or App 81, 627 P2d 910 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

 

      419C.501

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Juvenile court was without authority to enforce restitution order after plaintiff reached age 21. MacKillop v. Foster, 68 Or App 855, 683 P2d 146 (1984)

 

In general

 

      Under 1999 version of statute, “maximum period of institutionalization or commitment authorized if act had been committed by adult” is maximum indeterminate sentence applicable to class of offense under ORS 161.605, not maximum sentence applicable to particular offense under sentencing guidelines. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Johnson, 168 Or App 81, 7 P3d 529 (2000)

 

      1995 amendments extending period of juvenile court control over youth offenders do not apply to youth committing delinquent act prior to effective date of amendments. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Nicholls, 192 Or App 604, 87 P3d 680 (2004)

 

      419C.504

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Juvenile court was without authority to enforce restitution order after plaintiff reached age 21. MacKillop v. Foster, 68 Or App 855, 683 P2d 146 (1984)

 

      419C.570

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 75 OLR 829 (1996); 80 OLR 1 (2001)

 

      419C.573

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 75 OLR 829 (1996)

 

      419C.575

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 80 OLR 1 (2001)

 

      419C.610

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Court authority to modify or set aside order is subject to limitations on expunction under ORS 419A.260. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Alderson, 146 Or App 185, 932 P2d 97 (1997)

 

      Court may set aside order finding youth within jurisdiction of court notwithstanding that underlying conduct is type for which ORS 419A.260 prohibits expungement of record. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Tyree, 177 Or App 187, 33 P3d 729 (2001)

 

      Where juvenile court erroneously deferred requirement to provide DNA sample, court’s reinstatement of requirement after court’s jurisdiction terminated did not violate this section. State v. E.C.-P., 289 Or App 569, 410 P3d 1045 (2017)

 

 

      419C.615

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Authority to set aside original judgment resides only with juvenile court that issued original judgment. Smith v. Jester, 234 Or App 629, 228 P3d 1232 (2010)

 

      419C.626

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      As used in this section, phrase “specifically state” requires that court findings explicitly state reasons continuing out-of-home placement is necessary as opposed to another placement but does not require court to use term “necessary.” State v. D.J., 281 Or App 730, 384 P3d 164 (2016)

 

      419C.680

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Curfew statute provides police officers with authority to stop suspected violators that is additional to traditional authority for stop. State v. Morris, 56 Or App 97, 641 P2d 77 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

 

      There is no requirement that child taken into custody for curfew violation be within category otherwise allowing temporary custody. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Stevens, 89 Or App 467, 749 P2d 613 (1988)