Evidence; Juveniles_prior juvenile delinquency adjudications_admissible in subsequent
adjudications
Evidence of prior juvenile delinquency adjudications was properly admitted to impeach
the juvenile's credibility in a subsequent adjudication proceeding. The clear intent of the
legislature in adopting N.C.G.S. § 8C_1, Rule 609(d) and N.C.G.S. § 7B_3201(b) was to provide
that a prior juvenile adjudication is admissible in a juvenile proceeding where the juvenile takes
the stand in his own defense, even though that evidence is not admissible in a criminal case.
Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney
General Margaret P. Eagles, for petitioner-appellee.
Russell J. Hollers III for respondent-appellant.
HUNTER, Judge.
S.S.T. (“juvenile”) appeals from an order dated 19 March 2003
adjudicating him as a delinquent juvenile based on a finding that
he committed the offenses of disorderly conduct, resisting,
obstructing and/or delaying an officer, and assault on a government
officer/employee. As a consequence, a dispositional order was
filed on 14 March 2003, requiring juvenile to serve 12 months of
supervised probation and perform 100 hours of community service.
We conclude that evidence of juvenile's prior juvenile
adjudications was properly admitted to impeach juvenile's
credibility under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3201(b) and affirm the
adjudication order. Juvenile denied the allegations of the petition and,
accordingly, a juvenile hearing was conducted. During cross-
examination of the juvenile by the State during the adjudication
phase of the proceeding, the prosecutor inquired if juvenile had
been adjudicated delinquent on three prior occasions. These prior
adjudications included one for assault, a second consisting of one
assault on school personnel and a simple assault, and a third for
communicating threats. Juvenile, through counsel, did not object
to this questioning. Juvenile admitted these prior offenses.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether it was error to
admit evidence of the prior juvenile adjudications as impeachment
evidence.
(See footnote 1)
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, “[i]f the juvenile
denies the allegations of the petition, the court shall proceed in
accordance with the rules of evidence applicable to criminal
cases.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2408 (2003). Rule 609 of the North
Carolina Rules of Evidence provides for the admissibility of prior
criminal convictions to attack the credibility of a witness. See
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 609 (2003). Under this rule,
“[e]vidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not admissible
. . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 609(d). The juvenile code,
however, expressly and specifically provides that “in any
delinquency case if the juvenile is the defendant and chooses to
testify . . . , the juvenile may be ordered to testify with respect
to whether the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-3201(b) (2003).
Even though N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3201 deals with the effect of
expunction of juvenile records, the plain language of subsection
(b) of that statute by its clear and unambiguous language applies
to any juvenile delinquency case, not just those in which a
juvenile is questioned about an adjudication which has been
expunged. Therefore, a juvenile in a delinquency proceeding who
takes the stand in his own defense, as in this case, is subject to
being cross-examined about prior delinquency adjudications under
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3201, notwithstanding Rule 609(d) of the Rules
of Evidence. This is supported by a brief review of the statutory
history behind both N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3201 and Rule 609(d) of
the Rules of Evidence.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3201 was originally enacted as N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7A-601, see 1979 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 815, § 1, and later
codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-677. Under the original statute,
evidence of a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication was
admissible against a juvenile who took the stand as a defendant in
both criminal and delinquency proceedings. See State v. Baker, 312
N.C. 34, 46, 320 S.E.2d 670, 678 (1984). When the current rules of
evidence were adopted by our legislature in 1983, see 1983 Sess.
Laws ch. 701 § 1, they included Rule 609(d) providing that in
general juvenile adjudications were not admissible, see N.C. Gen.
Stat. 8C-1, Rule 609(d). The exception to this rule provided, as
it still does, that a trial court may
in a criminal case allow evidence of a
juvenile adjudication of a witness other than
the accused if conviction of the offense would
be admissible to attack the credibility of anadult and the court is satisfied that
admission in evidence is necessary for a fair
determination of the issue of guilt or
innocence.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 609(d). Commentary to Rule 609 urged
the legislature to amend then N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-677 to conform
to this rule. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 609, official
commentary, (2003). The legislature subsequently amended former
Section 7A-677 to omit the reference to criminal cases, but left
prior juvenile adjudications admissible in juvenile delinquency
proceedings against a juvenile taking the stand. See 1984 N.C.
Sess. Laws ch. 1037, § 7. Section 7A-677 was then re-codified in
our current juvenile code at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3201. See 1998
Sess. Laws ch. 202, § 6.
Thus, the clear intent of our legislature in adopting Rule 609
and Section 7B-3201(b) was to provide that although evidence of a
prior juvenile adjudication is not admissible in a criminal case,
evidence of a prior juvenile adjudication is admissible in a
juvenile proceeding where the juvenile takes the stand in his own
defense. In the case sub judice, juvenile took the stand in his
own defense. Therefore, in this case it was not error to admit
evidence of juvenile's prior adjudications.
(See footnote 2)
As a practical matter, allowing the admission of a juvenile's
prior delinquency adjudications as impeachment evidence under N.C
Gen. Stat. § 7B-3201(b) is logical for two reasons. First, it isonly reasonable, in the limited setting of a juvenile delinquency
proceeding, that the State be allowed to impeach the credibility of
a juvenile who takes the stand in his own defense with the
juvenile's prior adjudications for committing criminal offenses, in
the same way that the credibility of a defendant in a criminal
proceeding may be impeached with prior convictions for those same
criminal offenses. Second, as juvenile delinquency proceedings are
conducted by bench trial, it is presumed that the trial court will
only consider competent evidence, see In re Morales, 159 N.C. App.
429, 433, 583 S.E.2d 692, 694 (2003), thus mitigating any
possibility that the prior adjudications would be considered for an
improper purpose.
Juvenile also argues that it was error for the prosecutor to
recite details of the prior adjudications in cross-examining him.
A review of the transcript, however, shows that the prosecutor
simply refreshed juvenile's memory by naming the victim of one of
the simple assaults and the victim of the communicating threats
adjudication as well as the fact that it involved a death threat.
See State v. White, 349 N.C. 535, 554-55, 508 S.E.2d 253, 265-66
(1998) (not error under Rule 609 to recite certain factual elements
of prior convictions in order to jog a defendant's memory).
Accordingly, we conclude there was no error and affirm the
adjudication of delinquency.
Affirmed.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***