In Re Carey
241 Mich. App. 222, 615 N.W.2d 742 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause requires a court to determine a juvenile's competency before the adjudicative phase of a delinquency proceeding. In making this determination, courts should be guided by the procedural provisions of the Mental Health Code applicable to adult criminal defendants, but the competency evaluation itself must be made in light of juvenile, rather than adult, norms.
Facts:
- A petition was filed in juvenile court alleging that the respondent, a juvenile, had committed second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
- A psychological evaluation performed by Cary Bautel indicated that the respondent had a full scale IQ of 52 and was classified as 'educable mentally impaired.'
- Bautel opined that the respondent would understand very little of the court proceedings.
- A separate examination by psychologist Jason Stentoumis found the respondent's full scale IQ to be 65, placing him in the lowest one percentile for his age.
- Stentoumis testified that the respondent could understand simple language but not abstract matters, had short-term memory problems, and was unsure if the respondent could assist his counsel.
- Stentoumis believed the respondent was aware he had done something wrong only because his mother was angry with him.
Procedural Posture:
- The prosecutor filed a delinquency petition against the respondent in the Alpena County Probate Court, Juvenile Division.
- The prosecutor moved for a competency and criminal responsibility evaluation of the respondent, which the trial court granted.
- Following the psychological examinations, respondent's counsel moved for a competency hearing.
- The trial court held a competency hearing and initially found on May 15, 1998, that the respondent was not competent to stand trial.
- On December 31, 1998, the trial court reversed its position in a written opinion, ruling that the issue of competency was not relevant to the adjudicative phase of a juvenile proceeding.
- The respondent appealed this final ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
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 the Due Process Clause require a court to determine a juvenile's competency before the adjudicative phase of a delinquency proceeding, and if so, what legal standard should be applied when no specific statute or court rule exists?
Opinions:
Majority - Bandstra, C.J.
Yes. The Due Process Clause requires that a competency determination be made before a questionably competent juvenile is subjected to the adjudicative phase of a delinquency proceeding. Although juvenile proceedings are not criminal, they require essential elements of due process, including the right to counsel. This right to counsel is meaningless if the juvenile is unable to understand the proceedings or communicate with their lawyer due to a disability. Citing persuasive authority from numerous other jurisdictions, the court concluded that the right not to be tried while incompetent is as fundamental in juvenile proceedings as it is in the adult criminal context. Because no Michigan statute or court rule governs this procedure, the court directed trial courts to use the competency determination provisions of the adult Mental Health Code as a guide. However, the court specifically held that the evaluation must be made in light of juvenile norms, recognizing that a youth's level of comprehension will naturally differ from an adult's.
Analysis:
This case establishes for the first time in Michigan that juveniles have a due process right to a competency determination before being adjudicated in a delinquency proceeding. By importing the procedural framework from the adult Mental Health Code, the court provided a practical solution to a gap in the law, ensuring a uniform process for trial courts. The decision reinforces the principle that while the juvenile system is distinct from the criminal system, fundamental due process protections like the right to effective counsel cannot be ignored. The requirement to use 'juvenile norms' is a significant qualification, preventing the misapplication of adult standards to children and acknowledging the importance of developmental science in legal proceedings involving minors.
