Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: M.J.D.
This appeal arises out of a juvenile adjudication order. Because the trial court failed to state that the allegations in the petition were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we remand for further findings.
I. Factual and Procedural History
On 30 April 2018, C.B.1 was in the seventh grade at Mt. Airy Middle School. C.B. was walking down the school hallway when gum was thrown in her hair, and M.J.D. was the only person behind her. C.B. could not get the gum out of her hair so she went to the office. School staff eventually had to cut C.B.’s hair to remove the gum. Officer Garrett Chamberlain (“Officer Chamberlain”), the School Resource Officer, investigated the incident by watching surveillance video footage.
On 8 June 2018, a juvenile court counselor filed a juvenile petition accusing M.J.D. of simple assault. The petition was dismissed on 16 October 2018 citing “paperwork issues” as the reason for dismissal and indicating that the offense would be recharged. On 8 March 2019, the juvenile court counselor filed a new petition accusing M.J.D. of simple assault. An adjudicatory hearing was held on 7 May 2019. At the close of the State's evidence, M.J.D. made a Motion to Dismiss the charge. The trial court denied M.J.D.’s motion and adjudicated M.J.D. delinquent. M.J.D. gave oral notice of appeal in open court. Following adjudication, the trial court entered a Level 1 Disposition placing M.J.D. on probation for twelve months.
II. Standard of Review
The appellate court reviews a lower court's alleged statutory errors de novo. In re K.C., 226 N.C. App. 452, 462, 742 S.E.2d 239, 246 (2013). “Under the de novo standard, the Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower court.” In re A.M., 220 N.C. App. 136, 137, 724 S.E.2d 651, 653 (2012).
III. Analysis
M.J.D. contends that the trial court erred by failing to find that the State had proven the allegation of delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2411 (2019). We agree.
The allegations of a petition alleging that a juvenile is delinquent shall be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2409 (2019). “If the court finds that the allegations in the petition have been proved [beyond a reasonable doubt], the court shall so state in a written order of adjudication, which shall include, but not be limited to, the date of the offense, the classification of the offense, and the date of adjudication.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2411.
Here, the State concedes that the court used Form AOC-J-460 to memorialize its adjudication order, and the Finding of Fact Number 3, “the following facts have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt” was left blank. This Court found in In re: J.V.J. that “at minimum, section 7B-2411 requires a court to state in a written order that ‘the allegations in the petition have been proved [beyond a reasonable doubt].’ ” 209 N.C. App. 737, 740, 707 S.E.2d 636, 638 (2011). Accordingly, this Court remanded that matter to the trial court to make the “statutorily-mandated findings.” Id. at 741, 707 S.E.2d at 638.
Here, like in J.V.J., the trial court failed to state in the written order that the allegations in the petition were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this Court remands the adjudication order to the trial court for the appropriate findings or to dismiss the petition if the trial court finds that the facts were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
M.J.D. further contends that the trial court erred by failing to make findings in entering its Level 1 Disposition order to demonstrate that it considered the factors listed in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2501(c). However, because we remand the adjudication order on other grounds, we do not reach the merits of these arguments.
REMANDED.
Report per Rule 30(e).
FOOTNOTES
1. Pseudonyms are used to protect the juveniles.
YOUNG, Judge.
Judges INMAN and ZACHARY concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. COA 19-1005
Decided: April 07, 2020
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)