Since the Supreme Court took up the case of In re Walker, 282 N.C. 28 (1972), there has been a decided dicotomy between delinquent and undisciplined cases when it comes to the right of representation. The Walker Court, in its holding, differentiated delinquent cases from those in which undisciplined behavior was merely alleged on a number of levels, the principle diferentiation being that at a hearing in which a child was adjudicated undisciplined ". . .could not result in. . .commitment to an institution in which. . .freedom would be curtailed." Id. at 37. The practical import of this distinction is that the child alleged to be undisciplined is not automatically entitled to legal counsel.
So how does this square with N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-2000 which states that "[a] juvenile alleged to be within the jurisdiction of the court has the right to be represented by counsel in all proceedings"?
The simple answer is that it squares perfectly. If one reads further, the statute makes a distinction between when counsel can be assigned, confining the possibility of appointment in an undisciplined case to those circumstances where the alleged or adjudicated undisplined child is faced with a contempt proceeding. Again, the possibility of confinement was exactly what was important to the Walker Court in determining whether a right to counsel existed. And reading further, one finds that in such circumstances in which an alleged or adjudicated undiscplined child qualifies for the appointment of counsel, that child is entitled to the benefit of a conclusive presumption of indengence. Thius, appointment is automatic regardless of the financial wherewithall of the child.
No comments:
Post a Comment