The California Second District Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition orders related to a felony murder charge, finding that the record lacked substantial evidence that the youth acted with reckless indifference to human life. The court stated in relevant part: “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and measured against Emanuel‘s guidance, the…
The Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile court adjudication of second-degree tampering based on insufficient evidence regarding the youth’s requisite culpable mental state. The Court stated in relevant part: “W.M.H. argues the juvenile court erred in finding he committed second-degree tampering because there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt W.M.H.…
The Third District Court of Appeal in California vacated a felony murder conviction based on insufficient evidence to support the state’s required “reckless indifference” finding, which must also take into consideration youthfulness at the time of the incident. The court stated in relevant part: “Finally, defendant’s youth also cuts against a finding of reckless indifference. In Moore, supra,…
The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a conviction for theft by receiving stolen property finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the property was stolen. The court stated in relevant part: “Viewing the record, including the habeas corpus testimony about the VIN number check, and drawing all reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most…
The Court of Appeals in North Carolina vacated a judgment adjudicating L.K. delinquent for indecent liberties between minors and imposing a Level 1 disposition upon him, based upon the trial court’s failure to state a standard of proof. The court stated in relevant part: “In the case sub judice, our review of the transcripts and…
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile court’s adjudication of reckless burning, holding that a finding of recklessness requires evidence around a young person’s subjective awareness of risk. This case involved a 13-year-old youth who lit a fire on a grassy hill which spread and ended up damaging several homes. At issue was whether…
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the adjudication finding of the trial court, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the youth intended to damage playground equipment. The Court of Appeals offered the following language in support: “There is an appreciable difference between intentional action—that is, acting with a conscious objective…
This Article is one of the first to explore the racialized impact of the two most controversial and ubiquitous forms of what we call “imputed liability murder.” An analysis of ten years of murder prosecutions in the state of Minnesota reveals that imputed liability murder is anything but a fringe subtype of homicide: an astounding…
This affidavit relies on adolescent development research to conclude that felony murder should not be applied to youth, given that young people’s ongoing brain and psychosocial development goes against the very premise of felony murder. This affidavit emphasizes how felony murder perpetuates racial disparities and is contrary to adolescent development principles—namely that youth experience more…
From the introduction: “This project, which started in fall 2020, was initially intended to be significantly smaller than it turned out to be. Our coalition of authors intended to outline ways juvenile defenders could streamline their representation of youth charged with sex offenses. As the project gained momentum, this team of trial attorneys, social workers,…
From the Abstract: “Modern doctrine and scholarship largely take it for granted that offenders should be criminally punished for reckless acts. Yet, developments in our understanding of human behavior can shed light on how we define and attribute criminal liability, or at least force us to grapple with the categories that have existed for so…
From the introduction: ” Recent Supreme Court cases have recognized the science underlying the common-sense notion that children are not “little adults.” Their brains function in a completely different manner than those of adults. In 2005, the Court abolished the juvenile death penalty and recognized the neuroscience underlying the claim that those under the age…
From the introduction: “The authors use a developmental perspective to examine questions about the criminal culpability of juveniles and the juvenile death penalty. Under principles of criminal law, culpability is mitigated when the actor’s decision making capacity is diminished, when the criminal act was coerced, or when the act was out of character. The authors…
