Cameron Moon v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9345, 2013 WL 3894867, 410 S.W.3d 366 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A juvenile court abuses its discretion in waiving jurisdiction and certifying a child as an adult if its findings regarding the child's sophistication and maturity, and the prospects of public protection and rehabilitation, are not supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence.
Facts:
- In July 2008, Deer Park Police Detective Jason Meredith investigated the homicide of Christopher Seabrook in a grocery store parking lot.
- Seabrook’s cousin, Able Garcia, told Detective Meredith that Seabrook had arranged to buy marijuana from a seller known as “JT,” and during the transaction, Seabrook lunged into a car, Garcia heard gunshots, and a shooter fired upon Seabrook as he fled.
- Gabriel Gonzalez, the driver of the third vehicle, identified the shooter as “Crazy” and later directed police to where the shooter lived in La Porte.
- Emmanuel Hernandez, a backseat passenger, identified Cameron Moon (known as “J.T.”) as the shooter and stated he and Moon intended to rob Seabrook.
- Text messages from Moon on Hernandez’s cell phone before the shooting asked if he was “ready to hit that lick” and to bring a gun; after the shooting, texts pleaded “don’t say a word” and “tell them my name is Crazy, and you don’t know where I live.”
- Moon later confessed to the shooting and was taken into custody at the Juvenile Detention Center on July 20, 2008.
- Moon learned in 2007, one year before the incident, that his mother was incarcerated for capital murder after suffocating her newborn daughter and disposing of the body.
- Five months before the shooting, Moon had been charged with criminal mischief for allegedly “keying” another student’s vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a motion in juvenile court seeking to waive its jurisdiction over Cameron Moon and transfer him for trial as an adult on a charge of homicide.
- A hearing on the State’s motion to waive jurisdiction was held on December 17, 2008, in the juvenile court.
- On December 18, 2008, the juvenile court granted the State’s motion, waiving its jurisdiction and transferring Moon’s case to the 178th District Court.
- On April 19, 2010, a jury in the 178th District Court convicted Moon of murder and sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment.
- Moon, as Appellant, timely filed an appeal challenging the waiver of jurisdiction and the denial of his motion to suppress, bringing the case to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in waiving its jurisdiction over Cameron Moon and certifying him to stand trial as an adult by making findings regarding his sophistication and maturity and the likelihood of rehabilitation that were not supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Jim Sharp
Yes, the juvenile court abused its discretion in waiving its jurisdiction over Cameron Moon. The appellate court found the juvenile court’s finding that Moon was of sufficient sophistication and maturity to waive his constitutional rights and assist in his defense was legally insufficient, as there was no evidence presented by the State to support this specific finding. While Moon's attempts to conceal the crime showed awareness of wrongdoing, they did not support the juvenile court's specific finding regarding his ability to understand legal rights or aid in his defense. In contrast, Dr. Seth Silverman, a forensic psychiatrist, testified that Moon lacked sophistication and maturity and found him easily influenced and confused. Furthermore, the appellate court found the juvenile court’s finding that there was 'little, if any, prospect of adequate protection of the public and likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation' factually insufficient. The court noted that the seriousness of the offense alone, while a factor under § 54.02(a), does not automatically justify waiver, especially when evidence strongly suggests amenability to rehabilitation. Moon's prior history included only one non-violent misdemeanor (keying a car) and minor infractions in a juvenile facility. Dr. Silverman’s report stated Moon had 'little inclination toward violence,' did not fit the mold of typical offenders, and would likely be harmed by the adult system, but could benefit from a therapeutic adolescent environment. Moon's juvenile probation officers uniformly described him as 'a good kid,' cooperative, and amenable to treatment. The juvenile court’s conclusion about the juvenile system not having authority over Moon long enough for rehabilitation was also unsupported by evidence. Given that only the 'offense against the person' factor weighed in favor of transfer, the juvenile court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction, and its judgment is vacated, with the case remaining pending in the juvenile court.
Analysis:
This case establishes a high bar for juvenile courts seeking to waive jurisdiction, reinforcing that such transfers are 'critically important' and intended for 'exceptional cases.' It clarifies that the 'sophistication and maturity' factor under Texas Family Code § 54.02(f) relates specifically to a juvenile's culpability and ability to navigate the legal process, not merely general awareness of wrongdoing or attempts to conceal a crime. Furthermore, the decision emphasizes that the seriousness of the alleged offense, while a crucial consideration, cannot alone justify waiver, particularly when other factors like the juvenile’s history, amenability to rehabilitation, and expert testimony weigh heavily against transfer. This ruling compels juvenile courts to ensure robust evidentiary support for each statutory factor before depriving a child of the rehabilitative possibilities of the juvenile system.
