Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Jurisdiction Case Analysis

By: dmc-admin//October 13, 2004//

Jurisdiction Case Analysis

By: dmc-admin//October 13, 2004//

Listen to this article

While the court contends its decision logically and necessarily follows from State v. Jermaine T.J., 181 Wis.2d 82, 510 N.W.2d 735 (Ct.App.1993), and State v. Smith, 131 Wis.2d 220, 388 N.W.2d 601 (1986), the decision is actually an enormous expansion of those cases that is not required by precedent nor even consistent with the reasoning of prior precedent.

In Jermaine T.J., the juvenile was arrested, a secure detention hearing was held, he was released, and failed to appear for his next hearing. A capias was (improperly) issued, but the court took no other action, other than tolling the applicable time limits.

Jermaine was later arrested on an unrelated matter, and an initial appearance was held, at which Jermaine was present. He was again released, and again failed to appear. Again, the court issued an (improper) capias, but took no other action. Jermaine was again arrested, and a waiver hearing was finally held, at which he was waived to adult court.

Thus, in every instance in which Jermaine did not appear, the only action the court took was to improperly issue a capias, rather than ordering personal service, or service by certified, rather than regular, mail. At no time did the court proceed to conduct any substantive hearings.

When the court in Jermaine T.J. relied on Smith, therefore, it did so correctly, for Smith holds that the only remedy for an improper arrest (such as arrest pursuant to an unlawfully issued capias) is suppression of any statements made by the defendant after arrest.

Here, however, the action complained of is not just an unlawful capias and subsequent arrest, but the court waiving Aufderhaar into adult court in abstentia.

The more fundamental difference is that Jermaine T.J. was challenging the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over him, while Aufderhaar is challenging the adult court’s jurisdiction. Aufderhaar was not seeking dismissal of the entire matter, as Jermaine T.J. was, an important consideration in the Jermaine T.J. decision: “The juvenile court’s error in improperly issuing the capias resulted in Jermaine being illegally taken into secure juvenile custody. We have already concluded that it would be inappropriate to engraft the remedy — dismissal with prejudice — for failure to comply with mandatory time limits to this situation.” Jermaine T.J., 181 Wis.2d at 89-90.

Here, the result of the juvenile court’s error was that Aufderhaar was improperly waived into adult court, and the remedy sought is only to undo that act, not dismissal with prejudice of the juvenile petition. In the case at bar, the remedy sought is appropriate — undoing the direct result of the error, just as suppression of statements to police is the appropriate result for an unlawful arrest. It undoes only the direct result of the error.

Related Links

Wisconsin Court System

Related Article

Constructive notice suffices
to confer jurisdiction

The court in Jermaine T.J. went on at great length about the “importance of the petition in obtaining personal jurisdiction.” Id., at 90. The court noted, “The juvenile can file motions challenging the sufficiency of the probable cause. At a plea hearing, the juvenile must be advised of the allegations in the petition and the nature and possible consequences of the delinquency proceedings. The juvenile enters a plea to the allegations of the petition (cites omitted).” Id. at 91.

Unlike Jermaine T.J., however, in the case at bar, Aufderhaar was waived from juvenile to adult court without any of these mandatory procedural protections.

The actual holding of Jermaine T.J. is as follows: “the error in issuing a capias for Jermaine did not deprive the [juvenile] court of its competence to adjudicate the merits of the waiver petition. …” Id. at 91.

It is a radical expansion to go from that innocuous holding to the effective one in the case at bar: “the juvenile court’s error in proceeding in abstentia against a juvenile delinquent who did not receive the statutorily required notice does not deprive the adult court of its competence to adjudicate the merits of a criminal prosecution.”

Even if the juvenile court had personal jurisdiction, it had no authority to waive Aufderhaar to adult court under the circumstances, and thus, the adult court either has no subject matter jurisdiction, or competence to hear the criminal case.

– David Ziemer

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests