On March 1, 2011, the North Carolina Court of Appeals filed the case of In the Matter of J.V.J. (COA10-1074). An Orange County appeal, the issue in controversy being an adjudicatory order in which the Respondent Juvenile was adjudicted a delinquent based upon alleged assaultive actions upon a school resource officer. The Court's review confined itself to the sole issue of whether the adjudication was adequaetely supported by the trial court's findings of fact. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court due to that court's rather palltry factual findings which, among other things, failed to reference that the findings were made by clear cogent and convincing evidence.
Admittedly, I am sure the reader would agree, that this case is one that should hardly raise an eyebrow. That is, unless one considers the facts a little more deeply.
First of all, there is the behavior of the Respondent to which there was abundant and largely undisputed evidence at trial. The presiding judge found that the Respondent initially raised a commotion in the classroom because of something his teacher had said. This led to a call to the school resource officer which then led to the Respondent assaulting him, getting so far out of kilter that a standoff finally ensued, the Respondent threatening to throw a chair at the Resource Officer while the Resource Officer threatening to use his Tazer on the Respondent.
Next there is the behavior of the Respondent at trial. The Orange County trial court had adjudicated the case on January 20, 2010 and had set the case for disposition on February 17, 2010. The case was continued on motion from the Respondant on February 18, 2010, and again on March 17, 2010, both occasions due to the Respondant's unavailability.
Finally, there is the behavior of the Respondent on appeal. The Court has long held that “‘[a]n adjudication of delinquency is not a final order’” and is therefore unappealable. In re M.L.T.H., __N.C. App. __, __, 685 S.E.2d 117, 121 (2009) (quoting In re Taylor, 57 N.C. App. 213, 214, 290 S.E.2d 797, 797 (1982));. The Juvenile Code also speaks to the issue. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2602. These facts were acknowledged by both the appellant and the appellee as well as the reviewing panel of the Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the Respondent filed his appeal asking for relief by means of a Writ of Certiori, seeking in the process to get special consideration despite the fact that, based on the facts which reveal no vital issues of public importance, no special consideration was due.
So, despite the Respondent's assaultive and disreprespective behavior, despite the juvenile's rejection of statutory law and prior prescedent which would simply have him wait until the disposition in his case was heard, in short despite all this continuous stream of bad behavior, the juvenile is rewarded not only with certiori being granted but with the case being remanded back to the trial court.
It is a maxim of the law that those who would command that equity be done unto them must themselves be equitable. Somehow, somewhere, this principle has gotten lost in this case. Given the lofty aims and directives of the Juvenile Code with regard to adjudicating deliquent youth, those platitudes which suggest that the State embraces redirection and rehabilitation of the wayward to set them back on a path of right conduct, it seems that just the opposite has been accomplished here.
Admittedly, I am sure the reader would agree, that this case is one that should hardly raise an eyebrow. That is, unless one considers the facts a little more deeply.
First of all, there is the behavior of the Respondent to which there was abundant and largely undisputed evidence at trial. The presiding judge found that the Respondent initially raised a commotion in the classroom because of something his teacher had said. This led to a call to the school resource officer which then led to the Respondent assaulting him, getting so far out of kilter that a standoff finally ensued, the Respondent threatening to throw a chair at the Resource Officer while the Resource Officer threatening to use his Tazer on the Respondent.
Next there is the behavior of the Respondent at trial. The Orange County trial court had adjudicated the case on January 20, 2010 and had set the case for disposition on February 17, 2010. The case was continued on motion from the Respondant on February 18, 2010, and again on March 17, 2010, both occasions due to the Respondant's unavailability.
Finally, there is the behavior of the Respondent on appeal. The Court has long held that “‘[a]n adjudication of delinquency is not a final order’” and is therefore unappealable. In re M.L.T.H., __N.C. App. __, __, 685 S.E.2d 117, 121 (2009) (quoting In re Taylor, 57 N.C. App. 213, 214, 290 S.E.2d 797, 797 (1982));. The Juvenile Code also speaks to the issue. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2602. These facts were acknowledged by both the appellant and the appellee as well as the reviewing panel of the Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the Respondent filed his appeal asking for relief by means of a Writ of Certiori, seeking in the process to get special consideration despite the fact that, based on the facts which reveal no vital issues of public importance, no special consideration was due.
So, despite the Respondent's assaultive and disreprespective behavior, despite the juvenile's rejection of statutory law and prior prescedent which would simply have him wait until the disposition in his case was heard, in short despite all this continuous stream of bad behavior, the juvenile is rewarded not only with certiori being granted but with the case being remanded back to the trial court.
It is a maxim of the law that those who would command that equity be done unto them must themselves be equitable. Somehow, somewhere, this principle has gotten lost in this case. Given the lofty aims and directives of the Juvenile Code with regard to adjudicating deliquent youth, those platitudes which suggest that the State embraces redirection and rehabilitation of the wayward to set them back on a path of right conduct, it seems that just the opposite has been accomplished here.
No comments:
Post a Comment