In Re the Welfare of S.J.T.
2007 Minn. App. LEXIS 109, 736 N.W.2d 341, 2007 WL 2178059 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A juvenile certification statute that creates a rebuttable presumption of adult certification does not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because it does not compel the juvenile to testify. When a court does compel a juvenile to submit to psychological studies or provide records for a certification hearing, there is no Fifth Amendment violation so long as state law provides use and derivative use immunity for any incriminating information obtained.
Facts:
- Appellant S.J.T. was accused of initiating numerous nonconsensual sexual encounters with his adopted sister over several years, starting around 2003.
- At the time of the alleged offenses, S.J.T. was 16-17 years old, and his sister was approximately 12 years old.
- In preparation for his adult certification hearing, S.J.T. cooperated with his own expert psychologist, Dr. Ascano.
- S.J.T. refused to meet with the state's expert psychologist, Dr. Hein-Kolo, for her evaluation.
- A probation officer, Tama Puhr, interviewed S.J.T. twice for a certification study.
- Although S.J.T. initially signed a release for his medical records for Puhr, he subsequently revoked the release.
- On the advice of his counsel, S.J.T. refused to provide Puhr with his version of the events underlying the allegations.
Procedural Posture:
- The state filed a delinquency petition against S.J.T. in juvenile court and moved to certify him for prosecution as an adult.
- S.J.T. filed a motion to dismiss the certification proceeding on constitutional grounds, which the district court (trial court) denied.
- S.J.T.'s request for a stay of proceedings pending an appeal of the denial was also denied by the district court.
- The Minnesota Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the denial of the stay and denied discretionary review of the motion to dismiss.
- After conducting a certification hearing, the district court granted the state's motion and certified S.J.T. as an adult.
- S.J.T. (appellant) appealed the final certification order to the Minnesota 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 Minnesota's juvenile certification process violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination by (1) creating a presumption of certification that a juvenile must rebut, and (2) allowing a court to compel the juvenile to submit to psychological studies and release medical records?
Opinions:
Majority - Kalitowski, Judge
No. Minnesota's juvenile certification process does not violate the Fifth Amendment. The statutory presumption of certification does not compel a juvenile to testify; the juvenile may rebut the presumption with other forms of evidence, and the choice to testify is a tactical one, not a requirement. While a court order compelling a juvenile to submit to psychological studies or release records is considered compelled testimony under the Fifth Amendment, it is constitutional because Minnesota rules and statutes provide use and derivative use immunity. This immunity, which prevents any compelled disclosures from being used against the juvenile in a subsequent criminal trial, is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege, thus satisfying constitutional requirements.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the constitutional parameters of juvenile certification proceedings under the Fifth Amendment. It establishes that placing an evidentiary burden on a juvenile to rebut a statutory presumption of adult certification does not, by itself, constitute compelled self-incrimination. The ruling reinforces the principle that compelled participation in pretrial evaluations is permissible if accompanied by robust use and derivative use immunity. This provides a constitutionally sound framework for states to gather necessary information for certification decisions while protecting a juvenile's core Fifth Amendment rights in any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Unlock the full brief for In Re the Welfare of S.J.T.