K. M., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A juvenile court improperly referred K.M.'s delinquency trial to a non-judicial referee rather than conducting it before a judge. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that such referrals violate constitutional protections following the Supreme Court's recognition that juvenile trials are quasi-criminal proceedings requiring judicial oversight.
A juvenile judge may not appoint a non-judicial referee to conduct a delinquency trial. Such referral is improper and constitutes reversible error because juvenile trials, while not fully criminal in nature, partake of criminal characteristics requiring judicial oversight rather than delegation to non-judicial officers.
[1] A juvenile court may not refer a juvenile's delinquency trial to a referee.
[2] Juvenile delinquency proceedings are considered criminal proceedings, not parens patriae actions.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the entire basis and even philosophy of juvenile proceedings has been changed in accordance with the holding of the United States Supreme Court that a trial of a juvenile partakes of the nature of a criminal proceeding rather than a proceeding in which the State is parens patriae”
Establishes that juvenile trials have acquired quasi-criminal character, fundamentally changing the legal framework that previously authorized referee trials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.M., a juvenile, was charged with delinquency. A juvenile judge appointed a referee (a non-judicial officer) to conduct the trial rather than presidi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parens Patriae cases and more on FLexlaw
The controlling question on this appeal is whether or not a juvenile judge may appoint a referee to conduct a trial of a juvenile upon the charge that the juvenile is a delinquent. The State suggests that the authority for such a procedure rests in Chapter 20808, Laws of Florida, 1941, where authorization of a referee who is an official or employee of the juvenile court is enunciated. There is a distinct question as to whether this enactment is still in effect. See Chapter 71-29, sections 2 and 3, Laws of Florida, 1971. However, we do not find it necessary to decide that question because references by a juvenile court to a referee for the purpose of trial are improper upon a much broader basis.
Since the enactment of Chapter 20808, Laws of Florida, 1941, the entire basis and even philosophy of juvenile proceedings has been changed in accordance with the holding of the United States Supreme Court that a trial of a juvenile partakes of the nature of a criminal proceeding rather than a proceeding in which the State is parens patriae. See V. v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed. 2d 659 (1972); State v. V. D. B., Fla.1972, 270 So.2d 6. The legal effect of the recent holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. V. D. B., supra, emphasizes the changed nature of the proceedings in cases involving juveniles. We hold, therefore, that the reference of appellant’s trial to a non-judicial officer was without authority and constitutes reversible error.
It should be noted that under amended Article V of the Constitution of 1968, the trial of all juveniles, except for traffic offenses, is conducted in the circuit court.1 Therefore, the question of references under Chapter 20808, Laws of Florida, 1941, which was applicable to the juvenile court is not likely to arise again. This is a delayed appeal allowed to appellant under the holding in Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla. 1969, 229 So.2d 239, and we conclude that in view of the lapse of time since the entry *578of the order appealed, a new trial would be impractical. Therefore, the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. D. H., 309 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…e applicable in a juvenile setting. The Supreme Court of the United States and the Florida courts have properly attempted to inject procedural orderliness into the juvenile court system. For instance, in the case of K. M. v. State, Fla.App.3d, 1973, 277 So. 2d 577, our sister court stated “ . . . that a trial of a juvenile partakes of the nature of a criminal proceeding rather than a proceeding in which the State is parens patriae . . . ,” citing the cases of V. v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 195…
-
M. P. v. State, 284 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ered no objection to the procedure. Nevertheless, on this appeal the appellant contends that the failure to grant him a trial before the court was fundamental error. We agree and reverse upon authority of our holding in K. M. v. State, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 577. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.…
Authorities Cited
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Ivan v. V. City of N.Y., 407 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1972)
- State v. In the Interest of V. D. B., 270 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1972)