Jurisdiction Case Analysis

Listen to this article

The decision restores important procedural safeguards that were jettisoned when the court of appeals held that nothing more is necessary for personal jurisdiction to attach than that a delinquency petition be filed.

The court of appeals had quoted as support for its holding that, in State v. Jermaine T.J., 181 Wis.2d 82, 90, 510 N.W.2d 735 (Ct.App.1993), the court emphasized the "importance of the petition in obtaining personal jurisdiction."

However, the court took those statements out of context, for immediately afterwards, the court in Jermaine T.J. discussed the importance of the rights provided in the petition. 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.

Those rights are meaningless if a juvenile can be waived into adult court without ever actually receiving a copy of the petition, as the court of appeals’ decision in the case at bar would have permitted.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that, although the Supreme Court distinguished Jermaine T.J., and did not overrule it, there are significant differences in the procedural histories and legal arguments made in Jermaine T.J. and in the case at bar.

The Supreme Court made much of the fact that Jermaine appeared in juvenile court on two occasions, without challenging the court’s jurisdiction, and suggested that, had Aufderhaar ever made a personal appearance in court, the result would be different.

It is important to note, however, that initial personal jurisdiction was assumed in Jermaine T.J. The issues were whether it was error for the juvenile court to issue a capias, rather than attempting service as required by statute, and whether arrest pursuant to that capias stripped the court of personal jurisdiction that had already attached.

The Supreme Court’s discussion of Jermaine T.J. thus mischaracterizes it somewhat, by suggesting that the issue was whether personal jurisdiction existed at any point.

The actual holding in 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. …" Initial personal jurisdiction was assumed.

An interesting question raised by the decision in the case at bar is what the result would be, if at some point, the juvenile court obtained personal jurisdiction over a juvenile, via the juvenile’s appearance, but the provisions of sec. 938.27 were not complied with, and the juvenile court waived the juvenile into adult court in abstentia.

Jermaine T.J. would not be directly on point, because the issue there was whether the juvenile court had competence. Jermaine T.J. never addressed the adult circuit court’s authority.

Jermaine T.J. was seeking dismissal with prejudice of the entire action, not just a return from adult to juvenile court.

	Related Links Wisconsin Court System Related Article Statutory compliance required for jurisdiction

The Supreme Court’s discussion appears to allow for adult court jurisdiction in such a case, even though the juvenile may never have received a copy of the summons.

Thus, the court has arguably expanded the holding in Jermaine T.J. significantly, even as the court purported to distinguish the case.

A juvenile faced with such a situation should object to this, notwithstanding the court’s holding, and emphasize the significant difference in the issues that were presented in Jermaine T.J. and in the case at bar. The fact that Jermaine T.J. made an appearance in court, and Aufderhaar did not is arguably dwarfed by the differences in the remedies that were being sought by Aufderhaar and Jermaine T.J.

Assuming that it should not be held against a juvenile that his parents moved the family to Montana (which the court found), then a juvenile court should not be able to waive a juvenile into adult court, merely because, like Jermaine T.J., the juvenile made an initial appearance and was released, when he never received a copy of the summons.

– David Ziemer

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.