HOUSE BILL REPORT

SB 5668

BYSenators Pullen and Talmadge

Providing for venue of juvenile proceedings.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  Do pass.  (18)

      Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Padden, Ranking Republican Member; Belcher, Brough, Dellwo, Hargrove, Inslee, P. King, Locke, R. Meyers, Moyer, H. Myers, Patrick, Schmidt, Scott, D. Sommers and Tate.

House Staff:Pat Shelledy (786-7149)

AS PASSED HOUSE APRIL 3, 1989

BACKGROUND:

The adult venue statute provides that a criminal case will be charged in the county where the crime occurred.  However, a prosecutor must file a criminal charge against a juvenile in the county where the juvenile lives. The prosecutor of the county where the crime occurred, or the juvenile, may request that the case be filed in the county where the crime occurred. Current law does not state which county has the authority to decide where the case will be filed.

The court may transfer venue if reason exists to believe that an fair hearing cannot be held in the charging county. If the juvenile is tried in the county where the crime occurred the court may transfer the disposition or the enforcement and supervision to the resident county.

Under the juvenile code, a juvenile may be "diverted" from prosecution. A diversion agreement is a contract in which the juvenile agrees to certain conditions in lieu of prosecution.

SUMMARY:

A criminal charge against a juvenile must be commenced and tried in the county where the offense occurred. In cases involving diversion, venue is either in the county where the juvenile lives or where the crime occurred. Transfer of venue provisions remain unchanged.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

Effective Date:The bill takes effect on September 1, 1989.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    None Presented.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.