Yes. The court said it's okay to use the juvenile record to give a longer sentence. There's an exception to the jury rule for 'prior convictions' because if someone keeps committing crimes, that history is important. Even though a juvenile case isn't a 'conviction' and doesn't have a jury, it's still very fair. The teenager gets a lawyer, the case has to be proven with strong evidence, and other rights are protected. Because the process is so fair and reliable, it's trustworthy enough to use for sentencing later on.

No. The dissenting judge said this is wrong. The only reason a court can use past crimes to increase a sentence without a jury is because the person had a right to a jury trial the first time around. Since teenagers in juvenile court don't get juries, you can't treat that record the same as an adult criminal conviction. He argued that the whole point of juvenile court is to help kids, not punish them like adults, and using their record this way breaks that promise.

No, it's not against the law. The rules allow past actions as a juvenile to be considered in sentencing because these actions are seen as reliable and meet the necessary legal standards. The protections given during juvenile court cases, like having a lawyer and the requirement to prove guilt beyond doubt, make these past actions reliable for consideration. A jury wouldn't add much to checking if these past actions happened, as it would just involve looking at court records. Using juvenile records for sentencing helps achieve the goals of public safety and teaching people to follow the law. As long as the person received all the legal protections they were supposed to get in their juvenile case, the Constitution doesn't require a jury to double-check the fact of a juvenile record when sentencing an adult.

Yes, it is against the law. Using past juvenile actions that were not decided by a jury to increase someone's punishment as an adult is not right. The exception that allows using past convictions without a jury check is supposed to be very narrow and only for cases where there was a right to a jury trial. Juvenile cases are different from adult criminal cases - they're meant to help and rehabilitate young people, not punish them like criminals. By using juvenile records to increase adult punishments, we're going against the purpose of having a separate system for juveniles. The majority's focus on whether juvenile records are 'reliable' misses the point - the right to a jury trial is about more than just getting reliable information, it's about giving people a say in how the justice system works.

No. Using a defendant's prior juvenile adjudications to calculate a criminal history score does not violate the Sixth Amendment. These adjudications fall within the 'prior conviction' exception to the Apprendi rule because they are sufficiently reliable, even without a jury trial. The exception is based on the traditional sentencing factor of recidivism. Although juvenile adjudications are not technically 'convictions,' the juvenile system has evolved from a purely rehabilitative model to one that also emphasizes public safety and accountability. Crucially, juvenile proceedings afford significant due process protections, including the right to notice, counsel, confrontation, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These safeguards ensure the reliability of the adjudication, satisfying the underlying concerns of the Apprendi line of cases. The role for a jury would be limited to merely verifying the existence of the adjudication from court records, a task a judge can properly perform.

Yes. Using prior juvenile adjudications to enhance an adult sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. The 'prior conviction' exception is a narrow one, justified only because the prior conviction itself was obtained through proceedings that satisfied the constitutional right to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Juvenile adjudications, by definition, lack the right to a jury trial. The denial of this right in the juvenile system is predicated on its rehabilitative, rather than punitive, purpose. To then use that adjudication punitively in an adult sentencing proceeding is a 'hypocritical mockery' of the juvenile system's founding principles. The majority's 'reliability' analysis is a misinterpretation of Apprendi; the Sixth Amendment guarantees a jury as a fundamental check on state power, not merely as a tool for reliable fact-finding.

No. Juvenile adjudications can be used in calculating a defendant's criminal history score without violating the Sixth Amendment. The prior conviction exception to the Apprendi rule allows for this use because juvenile adjudications, while not criminal convictions, are reliable and meet due process requirements. The procedural safeguards in juvenile proceedings, such as the right to counsel and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, ensure their reliability. The role of a jury in verifying the existence of juvenile adjudications would be extremely limited, as it would only involve reviewing court records. Using juvenile adjudications for sentencing serves the legislature's purpose of promoting public safety and developing individual responsibility for lawful behavior. As long as the defendant received all the process that was due in the prior proceeding, the constitution does not require a jury to separately verify the fact of a prior juvenile adjudication for sentencing purposes.

Yes. The use of juvenile adjudications that do not come with a jury trial right violates the Sixth Amendment. The prior conviction exception to the Apprendi rule is narrow and based on the fact that prior convictions have been established through procedures satisfying fair notice, reasonable doubt, and jury trial guarantees. Juvenile adjudications lack the crucial jury trial guarantee and are fundamentally different from criminal convictions under Minnesota law. They are quasi-civil, rehabilitative proceedings, not criminal convictions. Expanding the prior conviction exception to include juvenile adjudications is at odds with the Supreme Court's narrow definition of the exception. The majority's 'reliability' test for allowing juvenile adjudications misses the point of the jury trial right, which is not just about reliability but about democratic control over the judiciary. Using juvenile adjudications to increase adult sentences undermines the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile justice system.

State v. McFee

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot