Commonwealth v. Cotto
753 A.2d 217, 562 Pa. 32, 2000 Pa. LEXIS 1522 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that places original jurisdiction for certain violent juvenile offenses in adult criminal court is constitutional. Requiring the juvenile to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a transfer to juvenile court would 'serve the public interest' does not violate due process, as the standard is sufficiently defined by specific statutory factors and the juvenile system is a legislative privilege, not a constitutional right.
Facts:
- The appellant, Cotto, was fifteen years old at the time of the underlying events.
- On April 23, 1996, Cotto and two accomplices used a handgun to rob a beauty salon, its owner, an employee, and two customers.
- On May 8, 1996, Cotto and three accomplices, again armed with a handgun, robbed a jewelry store, its employees, and one customer.
- Under the 1995 amendments to the Juvenile Act, Cotto's actions—committing robbery with a deadly weapon while over the age of 15—required that he be charged as an adult in criminal court.
Procedural Posture:
- Cotto was charged with multiple counts of robbery and criminal conspiracy as an adult in the criminal division of the trial court.
- Cotto filed a motion to transfer the case to juvenile court and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the Juvenile Act amendments were unconstitutional.
- The trial court held a hearing and subsequently issued an opinion denying both the motion and the petition.
- Cotto entered a negotiated guilty plea but specifically reserved his right to appeal the constitutional challenges.
- Cotto, as appellant, appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the amendments constitutional.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court, granted allocatur to review the constitutional issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the 1995 amendments to the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act, which require a juvenile charged with certain violent felonies to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a transfer to juvenile court would 'serve the public interest,' violate constitutional due process guarantees against vagueness and impermissible burden-shifting?
Opinions:
Majority - Castille, J.
No. The amendments to the Juvenile Act do not violate constitutional due process guarantees. The 'serve the public interest' standard is not unconstitutionally vague because the statute provides a detailed and extensive list of factors that courts must consider, providing a clear framework that channels judicial discretion and prevents arbitrary application. Furthermore, placing the burden of proof on the juvenile to justify a transfer does not violate due process because the special treatment afforded by the juvenile system is a statutory creation, not a constitutional right. The transfer hearing is not a determination of guilt or innocence, and the Commonwealth retains the full burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt at the subsequent criminal trial. The legislature has the authority to determine that certain serious, violent felonies committed by older juveniles warrant initial treatment in the adult criminal system.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legislature's broad authority to narrow the scope of the juvenile justice system in response to concerns about violent crime. It affirms the principle that juvenile court jurisdiction is a legislative privilege, not a constitutional right, allowing states to treat older, violent juvenile offenders as adults by default. The ruling establishes that due process in transfer hearings does not require the state to bear the burden of proof, distinguishing these hearings from the trial on the merits where the presumption of innocence applies. This case serves as a key precedent for upholding 'direct file' statutes that shift the presumption of jurisdiction for serious juvenile offenses from juvenile to adult court.
