Juvenile Code: Delinquency

ORS 419C.349
Grounds for waiving youth to adult court

(1)

Except as otherwise provided in ORS 419C.364 (Waiver of future cases) or 419C.370 (Waiver of motor vehicle, boating, game, violation and property cases), the juvenile court shall conduct a waiver hearing when:

(a)

The state files a motion requesting a waiver hearing in a case in which a petition has been filed alleging that a youth has committed an act when the youth was 15, 16 or 17 years of age that, if committed by an adult, would constitute aggravated murder or an offense listed in ORS 137.707 (Mandatory minimum sentences for certain juvenile offenders waived to adult court); or

(b)

The state files a motion requesting a waiver hearing in a case in which a petition has been filed alleging that a youth has committed an act when the youth was 15, 16 or 17 years of age that, if committed by an adult, would constitute:

(A)

A Class A or Class B felony;

(B)

Any of the following Class C felonies:
(i)
Escape in the second degree under ORS 162.155 (Escape in the second degree);
(ii)
Assault in the third degree under ORS 163.165 (Assault in the third degree);
(iii)
Coercion under ORS 163.275 (Coercion) (1)(a);
(iv)
Arson in the second degree under ORS 164.315 (Arson in the second degree); or
(v)
Robbery in the third degree under ORS 164.395 (Robbery in the third degree);

(C)

Any Class C felony in which the youth used or threatened to use a firearm; or

(D)

Any other crime that the state and the youth stipulate is subject to waiver.

(2)

After the hearing, the juvenile court may waive the youth to a circuit, justice or municipal court of competent jurisdiction if:

(a)

The youth at the time of the alleged offense was of sufficient sophistication and maturity to appreciate the nature and quality of the conduct involved; and

(b)

The juvenile court, after considering the following criteria, determines by a preponderance of the evidence that retaining jurisdiction will not serve the best interests of the youth and of society and therefore is not justified:

(A)

The amenability of the youth to treatment and rehabilitation given the techniques, facilities and personnel for rehabilitation available to the juvenile court and to the criminal court that would have jurisdiction after transfer;

(B)

The protection required by the community, given the seriousness of the offense alleged, and whether the youth can be safely rehabilitated under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court;

(C)

The aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner in which the offense was alleged to have been committed;

(D)

The previous history of the youth, including:
(i)
Prior treatment efforts and out-of-home placements; and
(ii)
The physical, emotional and mental health of the youth;

(E)

The youth’s prior record of acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult;

(F)

The gravity of the loss, damage or injury caused or attempted during the offense;

(G)

The prosecutive merit of the case against the youth; and

(H)

The desirability of disposing of all cases in one trial if there were adult co-offenders.

(3)

(a)

The victim of the alleged offense has the right to appear at a hearing under this section and to provide the court with any information reasonably related to the court’s determination.

(b)

Notwithstanding ORS 419A.255 (Maintenance), the district attorney may provide to the victim, at the request of the victim and pursuant to a protective order, a copy of the court’s written waiver findings and determination, if any, regardless of whether the victim appeared at the hearing or presented information to the court.

(4)

The right to counsel, and the appointment of counsel under ORS 419C.200 (Court-appointed counsel for youth), applies to a hearing under this section.

(5)

The state has the right to have at least one psychiatrist or licensed psychologist of its selection examine the youth concerning the determination of whether to waive the youth under this section. [1993 c.33 §213; 1993 c.546 §78; 1999 c.951 §1; 2003 c.404 §1; 2019 c.635 §§3e,23; 2021 c.474 §7]

Notes of Decisions

Under former similar statute

No particular formalities are required for the hearing. State v. Weidner, 6 Or App 317, 484 P2d 844, 487 P2d 1385 (1971)

The primary issue in the remand hearing is the prognosis for rehabilitation of a child if he is found to be in the jurisdiction of the court and subject to the rehabilitative programs available to the juvenile court. State v. Weidner, 6 Or App 317, 484 P2d 844, 487 P2d 1385 (1971)

An Oregon juvenile court may waive its jurisdiction over an Oregon juvenile who has committed an offense in another state, but the court does not have the power to transfer jurisdiction over the juvenile to a court in another state. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Casteel, 18 Or App 70, 523 P2d 1039 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence of underlying offense and manner of its commission may be relevant to whether child is amenable to rehabilitation in juvenile system. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Dahl, 37 Or App 839, 588 P2d 132 (1978)

Where juvenile court denied motions to remand defendant, state could not circumvent juvenile court by indicting defendant in circuit court. State v. Thornton, 41 Or App 469, 599 P2d 1160 (1979)

Where district attorney intentionally delayed prosecution of juvenile offender until he was 18 in order to avoid remand, juvenile court retained initial jurisdiction over offender. State v. Scurlock, 286 Or 277, 593 P2d 1159 (1979)

Where defendant, Warm Springs Indian, was charged with federal offenses over which adult court of Oregon has no jurisdiction, he could not be remanded to state court. United States v. E.K., 471 F Supp 924 (1979)

Juvenile court may order psychological or psychiatric evaluations for use in making decision to remand child to adult court. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Engeweiler, 114 Or App 575, 836 P2d 157 (1992)

In general

Requirement that youth possess “sufficient sophistication and maturity to appreciate the nature and quality of the conduct involved” means that, in order to authorize waiver of youth under ORS 419C.352 or under this section, juvenile court must find, as factual determination, that youth possesses sufficient adult-like intellectual, social and emotional capabilities to have adult-like understanding of significance of youth’s conduct, including wrongfulness of that conduct and consequences for youth, victim and others. State v. J.C.N.-V., 359 Or 559, 380 P3d 248 (2016)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

Under former similar statute

29 WLR 689 (1993)

In general

75 OLR 1223 (1996); 52 WLR 61 (2015)

Source

Last accessed
May 30, 2023

REMOVE ADS