State Justices Uphold Juvenile Crime Law

The California Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of a ballot measure that allows for stringent penalties against teenagers who commit crimes and gives prosecutors unilateral authority to decide whether certain teens should be tried as adults.

In its sweeping ruling, the state high court rejected multi-pronged attacks on Proposition 21, the juvenile justice measure overwhelming passed by voters in March 2000. The 6-1 decision, which removes a legal cloud over the measure, is expected to result in more juveniles accused of felonies being tried as adults in California.

An appellate court in San Diego last year had struck down a key section of the law that gives prosecutors, instead of judges, sole discretion to try certain juveniles as adults.

Before Proposition 21’s passage, judicial hearings were held to decide whether some teens would be tried in the adult system. The emphasis in the juvenile system is on rehabilitation and offenders must be released by the time they turn 25. The appellate ruling prompted many prosecutors, including the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, to let judges again make the call.

Although many prosecutors are now expected to exercise their newfound charging power, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said his office will continue to seek court hearings on offenders’ fitness for adult court except in “the worst of the worst” juvenile crimes.

“Although the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 21, we will proceed cautiously as we use this law,” said Cooley, who opposed the ballot measure and whose office handles more juvenile cases than any county in the state.

Justices Reject Claims of Unconstitutionality

Groups including children’s advocacy organizations, civil liberties activists and even the California Teachers Assn. supported the challenge of the law in the case before the state high court.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the court rejected the San Diego appellate court ruling and other attacks on the measure that could have wiped it off the books.

The court said the proposition does not violate the state Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine by transferring judicial authority to prosecutors because prosecutors traditionally have enjoyed wide latitude in charging decisions for adults and juveniles.

“The prosecutor does not usurp any fundamental judicial power in exercising such discretion,” George wrote.

The court also held that juveniles have no fundamental right to be brought before a Juvenile Court and rejected a challenge that the measure violated equal protection guarantees because charging decisions may vary according to the inclinations of different prosecutors in different counties.

Finally, the court found that Proposition 21 complied with a state constitutional requirement that initiatives cover only one subject.

Proposition 21 had provisions on gang activity and the sentencing of repeat offenders in addition to the overhaul of the juvenile justice system.

The court, citing a federal finding that about 40% of all gang members are under the age of 18, said juvenile crime and gang violence are closely related.

“The provisions of Proposition 21 that change laws regarding gang-related crime and the juvenile justice system are reasonably germane to each other and to the initiative’s common purpose of addressing violent crime committed by juveniles and gangs,” George wrote.

Two in the Majority Sign Separate Opinions

The ballot measure added several crimes to a list of violent and serious felonies that qualify as strikes under the “three strikes” sentencing law, which increases punishment for repeat offenders.

Among the crimes added as strikes was continuing sexual abuse of a child, an offense more likely to be committed by adults than by teenagers.

“Although some of these crimes, at first blush, might not bear an obvious relationship to juvenile or gang offenders, upon closer scrutiny we can not properly conclude that they are not reasonably related to the goal of the initiative,” George wrote.

The ruling cited a report by the U.S. Department of Justice that found sexual abuse by juveniles to be a serious and underreported problem.

The multiplicity of the measure’s provisions did not confuse voters because ballot materials and a report by the Legislative Analyst clearly spelled out what the law would do, the court said.

Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno did not sign the majority opinion. They agreed with the result but wrote separately to distance themselves from the majority’s analysis of the single-subject rule for ballot initiatives.

Justice Joyce Kennard dissented, arguing that judges, not prosecutors, should determine whether minors are tried as adults.

“The practical consequences are immense,” Kennard wrote. “An adult court may sentence a defendant to life imprisonment; a Juvenile Court cannot impose confinement beyond the age of 25.”

UC Berkeley law professor Franklin E. Zimring, who challenged the measure along with several other law professors, said the ruling appears aimed at “making sure enemies of Proposition 21 don’t show up again in the California Supreme Court.”

“They are saying, ‘Folks, the last thing we want to see is another Proposition 21 challenge,’ ” said Zimring, who specializes in criminal law and juvenile justice. “This was designed as a door-closing exercise and will doubtless succeed as one.”

But other lawyers in the case said the complex law is certain to generate more litigation.

‘Furtherance of Justice’ Note Gives Defense Hope

Defense attorneys took heart in a footnote to the ruling that suggested the court has yet to decide whether a Superior Court judge can dismiss charges against a juvenile “in furtherance of justice” or impose a juvenile term even if the teenager is tried as an adult.

William La Fond, who represented one of the defendants in the case before the court, said that possibility means there may be a “safety valve” remaining for young offenders. The court did not decide the issue because it was not raised in the case.

The ruling came in the prosecution of eight minors from an affluent San Diego neighborhood who allegedly chased and beat five Mexican migrants in 2000. The youths, aged 14 to 17 at the time, used ethnic slurs against the victims, four of whom were in their sixties, prosecutors said.

San Diego Dist. Atty. Paul F. Pfingst said the defendants will be arraigned and charged as adults as a result of Thursday’s ruling in Manduley v. Superior Court, S095992.

Pfingst said he believes that judges will continue to have the right to dismiss charges against juvenile offenders but will be required to impose adult sentences when minors are convicted as adults.

The impact of the ruling will not be large in terms of numbers “but most of the cases that are impacted are very important,” Pfingst said.

California is one of 15 states that vest prosecutors with the power to decide whether a minor will be tried in juvenile or adult court, according to the Pittsburgh-based National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Unlike California, most states, including New York and Pennsylvania, still permit judges to return a case to Juvenile Court based on a review of the evidence and the minor’s criminal history, experts said.

Some States Revisit Laws as Juvenile Crime Plunges

A dramatic decline in juvenile crime that began in the mid-1990s has persuaded lawmakers in several states to revisit laws toughening penalties against minors, the experts said. The drop in crime includes a murder rate that is as low as it was in the 1960s, according to the national center.

Bob Schwartz, director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, said the recent juvenile justice laws have “ruined the life chances of thousands of teens.”

“The studies are showing that kids who come out of the adult system are not only brutalized but come out and commit offenses that occur sooner, are more serious and are more frequent than those coming out of the juvenile justice system,” said Schwartz, whose group filed a legal brief against the initiative.

Charles Hobson, a lawyer for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a group that supports Proposition 21, said the ruling “recognizes that prosecutors always have the right to make the charging and venue decisions in criminal cases.”

“When they adopted Proposition 21, California voters made a choice to give our elected district attorneys the right to separate the violent, hard-core criminals from the young, entry-level offenders the juvenile justice system was created to deal with,” Hobson said.

Defense attorneys in the San Diego case said they have not yet decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We are very disappointed with the Manduley decision and are exploring every option to overturn this ruling,” said Deputy Public Defender Jo Pastore and two colleagues in a written statement. “Proposition 21 is not in the best interest of the people of the state of California and it does not promote the purpose of our juvenile justice system.”

Los Angeles Public Defender Michael Judge said Thursday’s ruling “eliminates an important check and balance on the power of prosecutors.”

“Institutionally we all know that when there is unbridled discretion, there are going to be cases of clear-cut abuse,” Judge said.