Main Menu

C.D. v. State

FAMILY LAW

Angela Sbano

In C.D. v. State, the supreme court held that fairness required the court to establish an exclusionary rule whereby a minor’s own testimonial evidence at a waiver hearing could not subsequently be used against him as evidence in juvenile adjudication or adult criminal proceedings. 15-year-old C.D. was charged with first degree murder and vehicle theft after he allegedly shot and killed his mother and sister. The State filed a petition for the court to waive juvenile jurisdiction, citing a state statute that holds that under certain conditions, the State may establish a rebuttable presumption that a minor will not be amenable to treatment in the juvenile system. Before the waiver hearing, C.D. had already stipulated that there was probable cause to say he was a delinquent, so the superior court held that the State had established its burden of creating a rebuttable presumption to waive jurisdiction. C.D. tried to rebut this presumption by presenting evidence concerning his background and testimony from people in his life as to his character, but he himself did not testify. The court granted the waiver, emphasizing the fact that C.D. had not provided evidence of his motivation. On appeal, the supreme court reversed the order, pointing out that C.D. had a property interest in being considered a juvenile which could not be taken away without due process. The court noted that the Alaska Constitution privilege against self-incrimination also applied in this situation. The court noted that much of the testimony that C.D. may have given in his defense at a waiver hearing could potentially be used by the State in any further proceedings against him. Since this would be fundamentally unfair, the court determined that it would need to use its “‘inherent supervisory powers’” to keep the State from using such testimony later on, and to ensure the minor knows that his testimony cannot be used against him in this way. Vacating the petition of waiver, the supreme court held that testimony presented by a minor at a waiver hearing cannot be used as evidence against him at either a subsequent criminal proceeding or juvenile adjudication.

C.D. v. State

FAMILY LAW

Angela Sbano

In C.D. v. State, the supreme court held that fairness required the court to establish an exclusionary rule whereby a minor’s own testimonial evidence at a waiver hearing could not subsequently be used against him as evidence in juvenile adjudication or adult criminal proceedings. 15-year-old C.D. was charged with first degree murder and vehicle theft after he allegedly shot and killed his mother and sister. The State filed a petition for the court to waive juvenile jurisdiction, citing a state statute that holds that under certain conditions, the State may establish a rebuttable presumption that a minor will not be amenable to treatment in the juvenile system. Before the waiver hearing, C.D. had already stipulated that there was probable cause to say he was a delinquent, so the superior court held that the State had established its burden of creating a rebuttable presumption to waive jurisdiction. C.D. tried to rebut this presumption by presenting evidence concerning his background and testimony from people in his life as to his character, but he himself did not testify. The court granted the waiver, emphasizing the fact that C.D. had not provided evidence of his motivation. On appeal, the supreme court reversed the order, pointing out that C.D. had a property interest in being considered a juvenile which could not be taken away without due process. The court noted that the Alaska Constitution privilege against self-incrimination also applied in this situation. The court noted that much of the testimony that C.D. may have given in his defense at a waiver hearing could potentially be used by the State in any further proceedings against him. Since this would be fundamentally unfair, the court determined that it would need to use its “‘inherent supervisory powers’” to keep the State from using such testimony later on, and to ensure the minor knows that his testimony cannot be used against him in this way. Vacating the petition of waiver, the supreme court held that testimony presented by a minor at a waiver hearing cannot be used as evidence against him at either a subsequent criminal proceeding or juvenile adjudication.