Brazill v. State
2003 WL 21076652, 845 So. 2d 282 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that grants prosecutors the discretion to try a juvenile of any age as an adult by obtaining a grand jury indictment for an offense punishable by life imprisonment or death does not violate the constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, or separation of powers.
Facts:
- On the last day of school, thirteen-year-old Nathaniel Brazill was suspended for a water balloon fight.
- Following his suspension, Brazill told a friend he had a gun and was going to return to shoot a school counselor, stating, 'Watch. I'm going to be all over the news.'
- Brazill went home, retrieved a handgun he had previously taken from his grandfather's house and loaded, and rode his bicycle back to school.
- At the school, Brazill went to teacher Barry Grunow's classroom and demanded to speak with two female students inside.
- When Grunow repeatedly refused to let the girls leave but invited Brazill to enter, Brazill pulled out the gun and aimed it at Grunow's head.
- After pointing the gun at Grunow for nine seconds, and as Grunow attempted to close the classroom door, Brazill fired a single shot, killing the teacher.
- Brazill fled the scene, aiming the gun at another teacher on his way out of the building.
- Shortly thereafter, Brazill surrendered to a police officer near the school, admitting he had shot someone.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Nathaniel Brazill with first degree murder.
- Pursuant to Florida Statute § 985.225, the prosecutor obtained a grand jury indictment, which automatically required Brazill to be tried as an adult.
- In the adult criminal trial court, a jury found Brazill not guilty of first degree murder but convicted him of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder with a firearm, as well as aggravated assault with a firearm.
- The trial court judge sentenced Brazill to a mandatory minimum of 28 years in prison.
- Brazill, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, with the State of Florida as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida Statute § 985.225, which allows a prosecutor to try a juvenile as an adult by obtaining a grand jury indictment for an offense punishable by life imprisonment or death, violate the constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and separation of powers?
Opinions:
Majority - Gross, J.
No, the statute does not violate the constitution. A state legislature has the authority to determine when a juvenile may be treated as an adult, as there is no fundamental constitutional right for a child to be adjudicated in a juvenile justice system. The court reasoned that since treatment as a juvenile is a statutorily-created privilege, not a constitutional right, the statute is subject to rational-basis review. The law is rationally related to the legitimate government interests of crime deterrence and public safety, especially for the most violent offenses. The court rejected the procedural due process claim by distinguishing Kent v. United States, noting that Florida's statute vests discretion in the prosecutor to seek an indictment, which does not require a judicial hearing on amenability to adult sanctions. Finally, the court dismissed the equal protection and separation of powers claims, affirming the long-standing principle of broad prosecutorial discretion in charging decisions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the juvenile justice system is a legislative creation and its benefits are not constitutionally guaranteed. By upholding broad prosecutorial discretion in 'direct file' or indictment statutes, the court affirmed a state's power to treat juveniles who commit serious violent crimes as adults without judicial oversight in the form of a waiver hearing. This case exemplifies a legal trend favoring public safety and punishment over rehabilitation for the most serious juvenile offenses. It solidifies the prosecutor's role as the gatekeeper between the juvenile and adult systems in specific, statutorily-defined circumstances.
