Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kluis v. Commonwealth
Citations: 14 Va. App. 720; 418 S.E.2d 908; 8 Va. Law Rep. 3533; 1992 Va. App. LEXIS 173Docket: No. 1453-90-1
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia; June 16, 1992; Virginia; State Appellate Court
Jonathan E. Kluis appeals a decision from the Circuit Court of Accomack County asserting that he should not be tried as an adult for breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. He argues that the trial court's determination was solely based on his prior emancipation, claiming that such status does not automatically preclude a juvenile from receiving treatment within the juvenile system. The court agrees that mere emancipation is insufficient grounds for transferring a case from juvenile to circuit court but affirms the transfer, citing evidence that Kluis was not amenable to rehabilitation as a juvenile. Kluis was declared emancipated at age sixteen in August 1989 and later charged with felony breaking and entering in June 1990 at seventeen. The juvenile court found probable cause for the charge and determined he was not suitable for juvenile treatment, leading to the case transfer. During the appeal, probation counselor Bill Weaver noted challenges in supervising Kluis under probation due to his living situation with estranged grandparents. Kluis presented no evidence in his defense, relying solely on his juvenile status. The court noted that under Code § 16.1-228, Kluis is still considered a 'child' and under Code § 16.1-269, transfer to circuit court is permissible if the offense is punishable in a state correctional facility and the juvenile is deemed not amenable to treatment. The court concluded that both conditions were met, affirming the trial court's judgment. Emancipation does not automatically confer adult status on a juvenile; it merely grants a level of independence not afforded to non-emancipated minors. A juvenile can still face adult prosecution for felonies, depending on case-specific facts and circumstances. Trial courts have discretion to determine whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult, a decision that will not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion is shown. According to Code § 16.1-269(A)(3)(b), a juvenile may be transferred to circuit court if the court believes the juvenile is not amenable to rehabilitation, considering factors such as the offense's nature and the juvenile's prior delinquency record. For serious offenses like armed robbery or murder, a juvenile may be certified without the usual findings. The trial court assesses nonamenability based on the offense and other factors, with the statute allowing a determination based solely on the offense's nature. A history of unsuccessful treatment is not necessary for this finding. The trial court must balance the interests of the juvenile and public safety. In this case, the juvenile court’s findings supported the decision that the appellant was not amenable to rehabilitation, affirming the trial court’s judgment without finding an abuse of discretion. The definition of a juvenile is a person under eighteen years of age, as per Code § 16.1-228(5).