In Re LM
186 P.3d 164 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state's juvenile justice system substantively changes from a paternalistic, rehabilitative model to one that mirrors the punitive goals, terminology, and sentencing structures of the adult criminal system, juveniles in that system are entitled to a trial by jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the corresponding state constitution.
Facts:
- L.M. was sixteen years old.
- L.M. was involved in a sexually suggestive confrontation with a neighbor who was walking home.
- As a result of this incident, L.M. was accused of committing acts that would constitute aggravated sexual battery if committed by an adult.
- L.M. was also accused of being a minor in possession of alcohol.
Procedural Posture:
- L.M. was charged as a juvenile offender on one count of aggravated sexual battery and one count of minor in possession of alcohol in a Kansas district court.
- L.M. requested a jury trial, which the district court denied.
- After a trial to the bench, the district court adjudicated L.M. guilty.
- L.M. (appellant) appealed the adjudication to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.
- L.M. (petitioner) filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Kansas on the sole issue of his right to a jury trial, which the court granted.
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 denial of a jury trial in a Kansas juvenile offender proceeding violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, given legislative changes that have made the juvenile system more punitive and akin to the adult criminal system?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosen, J.
Yes, the denial of a jury trial violates the U.S. and Kansas Constitutions because the state's juvenile justice system is no longer primarily rehabilitative. The court held that substantial legislative changes to the Kansas Juvenile Justice Code (KJJC) have eroded its benevolent, parens patriae character, making it functionally equivalent to an adult criminal prosecution. The court noted the shift in the code's stated purpose from rehabilitation to public safety and accountability, the adoption of adult criminal terminology (e.g., 'sentencing,' 'incarceration'), the implementation of a determinate sentencing matrix similar to adult guidelines, and the reduction of confidentiality protections. Because the system is now patterned after the adult criminal system, the reasoning of prior cases denying a jury right, such as McKeiver v. Pennsylvania and Findlay v. State, is no longer applicable. Therefore, juvenile proceedings under the KJJC are 'prosecutions' that trigger the constitutional right to a jury trial.
Concurring - Luckert, J.
Yes, L.M. has a constitutional right to a jury trial, but this right is grounded in Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, which states the right to a jury trial 'shall be inviolate.' This provision preserves the right to a jury trial as it existed at common law when the Kansas constitution was adopted. At English common law, juveniles aged 14 or older who were accused of felonies were entitled to a jury trial. Because 16-year-old L.M. was charged with an offense that would be a felony for an adult, he had a right to a jury trial under this historical analysis, regardless of whether the modern juvenile system is deemed punitive.
Dissenting - McFarland, C.J.
No, the denial of a jury trial does not violate the constitution because the juvenile system remains fundamentally different from the adult criminal system. The dissent argued that the majority overstated the legislative changes and ignored many unique, protective features of the juvenile system that remain intact. These features include a continued focus on rehabilitation, unique intake and intervention programs, an emphasis on family involvement, discretionary placement options, and the court's power to modify sentences. The dissent concluded that the system's rehabilitative and paternalistic goals are still central, meaning the reasoning of McKeiver and Findlay remains valid, and imposing a jury trial requirement would undermine the informal, protective nature of juvenile proceedings.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from established precedent in Kansas, overturning the 24-year-old Findlay v. State ruling. The case establishes that the constitutional rights afforded to juveniles are not static but must be evaluated in light of the evolving nature of the juvenile justice system. By linking the right to a jury trial to the increasingly punitive and adversarial character of the proceedings, the court sets a precedent that could influence other jurisdictions where 'get tough' reforms have blurred the lines between juvenile and adult systems. This holding suggests that states cannot adopt the punitive trappings of the adult criminal system for juveniles without also providing the corresponding constitutional protections.
Unlock the full brief for In Re LM