Question pertaining to US law only, although discussions about other countries’ laws would be welcome as well:
Suppose that John Doe commits a crime (theft, embezzlement, whatever) - but the exact time cannot be determined, and depending on the timeframe, it could have either been when he was 17 or 18 (Assuming that the legal age of adulthood is eighteen, and that the courts treat juveniles and adults very differently.)
Presumably, the burden would be on the prosecution to prove that Doe was an adult at the time rather than a juvenile (if they want to put him in more-severe adult court.) But how do they proceed with the case if they really can’t figure out the time/age? Do they just err on the side of caution and use juvenile as the standard?
If I understand your hypothetical correctly, both the punishment and the conviction may hinge on this fact. Meaning, if he’s a juvenile in juvenile court, he gets a more lenient sentence. But if he’s a juvenile in adult court, he might walk because they can’t prove that he’s an adult.
And there’s some ambiguity about his age, such that it’s not a slam dunk to prove that he’s an adult.
In such a situation, the prosecutor might use the prospect of a juvenile conviction as an enticement for an admission of guilt (which could include some degree of puffery):
“If we try you in adult court, you’re looking at prison. You think that we can’t prove your age just because you don’t have a social security number, but my investigators have tracked down witnesses who were at some of your birthday parties. Now, do you want to avoid that prison time by stipulating to responsibility as a juvenile?”
Or, they are left with their proof. A defendant says “prove it” and then they have to use whatever available evidence that they’ve gathered to establish this fact. If it’s an element of the crime, and they can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then it should determine whether they seek prosecution, since failure to prove it would be a basis for an acquittal.
In my experience, though, age is rarely an element of a crime (except in sex cases), and so it would be up to the defendant, if it’s ambiguous, to get transferred from adult to juvenile court. It’s rarely ambiguous, though, so this isn’t a problem I’ve encountered. When age is an issue, it’s known juveniles being pushed into adult court, following a juvenile court hearing, based on the severity of their offense.
I have no idea what they do when they truly cannot figure out whether the perpetrator was a juvenile or an adult at the time of the crime, but I suspect that it is extremely rare not to be able to pin down when the crime happened to a narrow enough window to tell. You can’t just charge someone with embezzling money - you have to charge them with embezzling a certain amount of money , from a particular person , within at least a range of dates. And the proof will be connected with dates- they transferred this money/wrote this check/took money out of the cash register, etc on a specific date or dates. Same thing with a stolen car - if I return from vacation on January 3, I might only know that my car was stolen between when I left on December 27 and when I returned on Jan 3 but in order for the age to become an issue, the perpetrator would have had to have the relevant birthday during that short time period.* Sometimes you have a crime/event that can’t be pinned down more precisely, such as when a corpse is found long after death - but that’s not usually the case. If there is a theft, embezzlement, assault, someone reported it and therefore someone knows approximately when it happened.
* Yeah, it could have happened during the six months I spent in Florida, but in that case, no one is getting arrested anyway.
Many years ago there was an assault in the Toronto subway. One of the persp was identified in the media, then the authorities had to ask that the media stop publishing his name. the assault was committed on his 18th birthday, so technically he was still a juvenile that day and could not be identified in the media. (The police had thought he was an adult on his 18th birthday.)
In the USA, I presume the prosecutor would then decide to try the juvenile as an adult, thus removing any ambiguity to the charge.
I presume if they try him as an adult, it’s up to the defendant to prove he is not an adult. Or perhaps his lawyer could argue he is not an adult, and see if the jury (or judge) buys the argument.
IMHO it would be a very very unusual situation to have no indication of age - admission to school, application for driver’s license, applying for a job, even visiting the doctor - life is full of forms and they will all ask for age or date of birth, from either you or your parent or guardian. What are the odds someone avoided this for 17.9 years?
One of my nieces was an adopted Korean orphan decades ago, and my step-sister said they had no date of birth for her. Due to slow growth from malnutrition, even an educated guess was not possible based on her size. So they guessed she was 3 years old and randomly picked a date of birth. Fortunately, she’s had no trouble with the law, before or after 18. But assuming this was someone’s situation, what would have happened? I would assume the DA would say “this is your nominal age you’ve always gone by, prove we’re wrong.”
This is a fun hypothetical. I do not know the answer:
A crime is committed, but there is absolutely no way to know exactly when it was committed. The top suspect had a legally important birthday during the time period that the crime may have occurred.
A pile of garbage is found with AG’s name on an envelope at the bottom of the pile. The police know the pile of garbage was not there four months ago. They know it was there yesterday. Sorting through the garbage only reveals the one incriminating envelope with a four month old postmark, so it’s no help either. It’s been winter, so the garbage is all frozen so not even forensic decay experts know how long it’s been there.
AG turned 18 two months ago. In this state juveniles cannot be tried as adults for littering. The DA has to decide to prosecute AG as either a minor or an adult.
Prosecute as adult, and then AG confesses to having committed the crime as a minor, what happens? Does the jury get to decide if AG’s story is believable? Do they have to acquit if they believe AG dumped the garbage, but was a minor? Could the DA take the confession and refile charges against AG as a minor?
Prosecute as a minor, and the worst that can happen is AG has to pay $50 and pickup the garbage, and then the conviction is sealed, so it’s like it never happened. What if AG then confesses to having dumped the garbage as an adult? Would the jury acquit? Would the DA be able to drop those charges and refile adult charges?
What if AG listens to the defense attorney and says absolutely nothing?
Does this run afoul of self-incrimination (5th Amend.)? Is the prosecution allowed to dangle perks in front of a defendant to get him to self-admit a crime? (although maybe it’s not that different from plea bargaining)
Also, another Q: Does it violate double jeopardy if a juvenile is acquitted in adult court but then the prosecutors realize, waiiiiit, we charged him in the wrong court to begin with, we should do him again in juvenile?
How wide is the range allowed with crimes in which the victim’s memory may be only good enough to remember what happened but not when? In some cases of child abuse, for instance, I’d imagine that some victims may only have been barely old enough to know that someone hurt them but not even be able to tell the prosecutor whether it was at age 3 or 5.
I imagine it all comes down to who bears the burden of proof. Is it to be assumed that a could-be-juvenile-or-not person is juvenile unless proven to be adult, or other way around? Yeah - that is the linchpin.
I’m not sure how much leeway there is when someone is charged with committing a crime “on or about” a certain date although I suspect that it’s ultimately up to the jury. I was actually referring to something a little different - there are some offenses where a person can essentially be charged with committing an act on two or more occasions withing a specified time period
Interesting that this is an issue. In Washington state juvenile court has jurisdiction until you turn 18. It doesn’t matter how hold you were when you committed the crime, once the suspect/defendant turns 18 they file in adult court. (other factors could cause the court to “decline” juvenile court jurisdiction for some children, such as charges for serious violent offenses)
If the charges are filed when the offender is under 18, and they turn 18 while the case is pending, jurisdiction of the juvenile court can be extended.
Isn’t it true that for U.S. federal cases, for instance, the feds often just fudge it all and treat a certain age range - say, 16 and 17 year olds - as adults anyway?
Not really, but as a minor, you can be tried as an adult if the offense is great enough. I seem to remember people as young as 14 being tried as adults for murder. (can’t find a cite at the moment though.)
If you are in federal court, chances are you did something egregious enough to be tried as an adult. If you being in federal court makes the news, then it is even more likely.
I’m not sure about the federal courts (there aren’t a lot of under 18 year olds convicted in federal courts - according to this there was a total of 52 between 2010-20150 ) but in state courts although there is some judicial discretion , it is generally within certain boundaries set by law. For example, in my state, anyone over 16 used to be prosecuted in adult court. Now it depends not only on the age but also the crime and possibly whether the district attorney consents or objects to the case being transferred to Family Court and the judges decision - and for those cases that remain in adult court, they are heard in a special “youth part”. But a misdemeanor case with a 16 or 17 year old defendant cannot be heard in adult court at all - they go straight to Family Court. Only felony cases even have a possibility of remaining in an adult court.
You can waive your 5th amendment rights and choose to incriminate yourself. And that is indeed what a plea bargain is - the defense tells the prosecutor why their case sucks, and depending on how persuasive it is the government may decide to offer an incentive to accept responsibility by offering a reduced charge and/or more lenient punishment.
Of course, this all assumes that the defendant has an attorney and is not being forced to take the deal.
Maybe. I would think so, since juvenile court exists within the same jurisdiction as adult court - it’s not like state vs. federal laws. So once the charges are adjudicated, I’d think that a person could avoid being prosecuted again.
But once adjudicated, any reversal would I assume be up to the appeal court? How strongly are they bound to reverse a conviction based on an indeterminate (or not previously stated) birth date?
Most US States have procedures where a juvenile can be tried (and sentenced) as an adult. Usually, the prosecutor applies to the court to have this defendant tried in adult court. If that is granted by the court, the person is then tried in adult court, and it no longer matters if he was a juvenile or an adult when he committed the crime*. It’s a settled matter, and claiming he was a juvenile is no longer a viable defense.
[This what happened with the 17-year-old who stomped my 2-year-old foster granddaughter to death. He was tried as an adult, agreed to a plea bargain guilt plea, and was sentenced to 25 years in adult prison, where I hope he rots.]
I would think that if there is any real question about the age, the prosecutor would go thru this process to make sure.
matters during the trial. His age can still be raised as a mitigating factor during the sentencing phase.