2906-S AMH KOHJ H4331.1

2906-S AMH KOHJ H4331.1

SHB 2906 - H AMD TO H AMD (H-4293.2/94) 1127 LOST 02/21/94

By Representatives J. Kohl and others

On page 48, line 31 of the amendment, after "have" strike "exclusive original jurisdiction" and insert "concurrent original jurisdiction with the juvenile court.

The prosecuting attorney shall have the discretion to file criminal charges in adult criminal court against a juvenile whose alleged offense and criminal history satisfies the criteria under this subsection or to file charges against the juvenile in juvenile court. The juvenile shall not be entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether the prosecutor may file charges in adult criminal court or juvenile court and the filing decision may not be appealed"

On page 48, line 37 of the amendment, after "plea" insert ".

If the prosecutor files criminal charges against the juvenile in adult criminal court, the court may, on its own motion or on the juvenile's motion, hold a hearing to determine whether the juvenile should be transferred to juvenile court to be prosecuted in juvenile court. If the court grants a hearing, the burden shall be on the juvenile to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that prosecution as a juvenile will adequately protect the community. In determining whether prosecuting the juvenile in juvenile court will adequately protect the community, the court may consider a variety of factors, including but not limited to the following:

Whether the alleged facts of the crime and the juvenile's participation in the crime is serious enough to warrant concern that the juvenile poses a serious threat to the community. In making this determination, the court may compare the facts of the crime charged against the juvenile with facts of identical crimes charged against adults. The court may also consider whether the juvenile was an accomplice or principal. The court may review the affidavit of probable cause in determining the seriousness of the case;

Whether the potential term of confinement that the juvenile would receive in adult criminal court is substantially longer than the potential term of confinement the juvenile would receive in juvenile court, after considering apparent grounds for finding that mitigating or aggravating factors exist; and

The prospects for the juvenile's rehabilitation in juvenile court considering the availability of disposition alternatives that have rehabilitation components and the availability of rehabilitation services in the juvenile system compared with the adult criminal system.

A judicial decision to grant or deny a motion for a hearing may not be appealed. If the court grants a motion to hold a hearing, the court's decision to retain the juvenile in adult court or to transfer the juvenile for prosecution in juvenile court may be appealed under an abuse of discretion standard of review"

EFFECT: The following changes are made to provision concerning adult criminal court jurisdiction over juvenile offenders:

(1) Adult criminal court will have concurrent original jurisdiction with the juvenile court over the offenders designated in the underlying bill;

(2) The prosecutor will decide whether to file the case in adult or juvenile court. No hearing will be held. The prosecutor's decision is not appealable.

(3) When the case is filed in adult court, the court may, but does not have to, hold a hearing to determine whether the juvenile should be transferred to juvenile court for prosecution as a juvenile. The decision to grant or deny a hearing is not appealable.

(4) If the court grants a hearing, the burden will be on the juvenile to prove that transferring the juvenile to juvenile court will adequately protect the community. The court may consider a variety of factors, including (a) the seriousness of this particular offense in comparison with other offenses that would result in the same charge being filed; (b) the juvenile's role in the crime such as whether the juvenile was an accomplice or a principal; and (c) the juvenile's prospects of rehabilitation. The court's decision is appealable. The standard of review is an abuse of discretion standard.