4.5​Crime Victim’s Impact in Juvenile Delinquency Cases

Under the Juvenile Code and related court rules, the Family Division Circuit Court has several procedural options when a petition or complaint is filed in a delinquency proceeding. This section addresses the crime victim’s impact on these procedures. For a complete discussion of the court’s options in juvenile delinquency cases, see the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Juvenile Justice Benchbook.

“When a petition [filed in a juvenile delinquency case] is not accompanied by a request for detention of the juvenile, the court may conduct a preliminary inquiry.” MCR 3.932(A). The preliminary inquiry need not be conducted on the record unless the case involves an offense listed in the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, MCL 780.781(1)(g). MCR 3.932(A). If the juvenile is in custody or the petitioner requests that the juvenile be taken into custody, the court must conduct a preliminary hearing. See MCL 712A.14(2); MCR 3.932(A).

During a preliminary inquiry, after completion and consideration of the results of the risk and mental health screening tools pursuant to MCR 3.907, and subject to procedural requirements imposed under the CVRA,³ the court may choose one of the following procedural avenues in MCR 3.932(A)(1)-(5) to serve the interest of the juvenile and the public:

“(1) deny authorization of the petition;

(2) refer the matter to a public or private agency providing available services pursuant to the Juvenile Diversion Act, MCL 722.821 et seq.;

(3) direct that the juvenile and the parent, guardian, or legal custodian be notified to appear for further informal inquiry on the petition;

(4) proceed on the consent calendar as provided in [MCR 3.932(C)]; or

(5) [authorize the filing of the petition and proceed] on the formal calendar as provided in [MCR 3.932(D)].”

During a preliminary hearing, after completion and consideration of the results of the risk screening tool and mental health screening tool, and subject to procedural requirements imposed under the CVRA,⁴ MCR 3.935(B)(3) authorizes the court to choose one of the following procedural avenues:

(1) dismiss the petition;

(2) refer the matter to alternative services under the Juvenile Diversion Act;

(3) proceed on the consent calendar under MCR 3.932(C); or

(4) continue with the preliminary hearing.

A.​Preliminary Inquiry Must Be on Record

MCR 3.932(A) requires a preliminary inquiry to be conducted on the record if the juvenile delinquency case involves an offense enumerated under the CVRA, MCL 780.781(1)(g).

The enumerated offenses set out under MCL 780.781(1)(g) are:

“(i) A violation of a penal law of this state for which a juvenile offender, if convicted as an adult, may be punished by imprisonment for more than 1 year or an offense expressly designated by law as a felony.

(ii) A violation of [MCL 750.81] (assault and battery, including domestic violence), [MCL 750.81a] (assault; infliction of serious injury, including aggravated domestic violence), [MCL 750.115] (breaking and entering or illegal entry), [MCL 750.136b(7)] (child abuse in the fourth degree), [MCL 750.145] (contributing to the neglect or delinquency of a minor), [MCL 750.145d] (using the internet or a computer to make a prohibited communication), [MCL 750.233] (intentionally aiming a firearm without malice), [MCL 750.234] (discharge of a firearm intentionally aimed at a person), [MCL 750.235] (discharge of an intentionally aimed firearm resulting in injury), [MCL 750.335a] (indecent exposure), or [MCL 750.411h] (stalking) . . . .

(iii) A violation of [MCL 257.601b(2)] (injuring a worker in a work zone) or [MCL 257.617a] (leaving the scene of a personal injury accident) . . ., or a violation of [MCL 257.625] (operating a vehicle while under the influence of or impaired by intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance,^[5] or with unlawful blood alcohol content) . . ., if the violation involves an accident resulting in damage to another individual’s property or physical injury or death to another individual.

(iv) Selling or furnishing alcoholic liquor to an individual less than 21 years of age in violation of . . . MCL 436.1701, if the violation results in physical injury or death to any individual.

(v) A violation of [MCL 324.80176(1)] or [MCL 324.80176(3)] (operating a vessel while under the influence of or impaired by intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, or with unlawful blood alcohol content) . . . , if the violation involves an accident resulting in damage to another individual’s property or physical injury or death to any individual.^[6]

(vi) A violation of a local ordinance substantially corresponding to a law enumerated in subparagraphs (i) to (v).

(vii) A violation described in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) that is subsequently reduced to a violation not included in subparagraphs (i) to (vi).” MCL 780.781(1)(g)(i)-(vii).

B.​The Court Must Accept Certain Petitions

“The court shall accept a petition submitted by a prosecuting attorney that seeks to invoke the court’s jurisdiction for a juvenile offense, unless the court finds on the record that the petitioner’s allegations are insufficient to support a claim of jurisdiction under [MCL 712A.2(a)(1)].” MCL 780.786.

C.​Removing Case From Adjudicative Process

If the juvenile delinquency case involves an offense enumerated under the CVRA, MCL 780.781(1)(g),⁷ the court must comply with the requirements set out under the CVRA in order to remove the case from the adjudicative process. MCR 3.932(B). See also MCL 712A.2f(5), which, subject to MCL 712A.2f(2),⁸ permits the court, in cases involving an offense enumerated under the CVRA, MCL 780.781, to “transfer a case from the formal calendar to the consent calendar at any time before disposition” only upon compliance with the procedures set out in MCL 780.786b.⁹

MCL 780.786b governs the process for removing a juvenile case from the adjudicative process. “The plain language of MCL 780.786b(1) contains several procedural steps that the family court must fulfill before deciding to remove from the adjudicative process a juvenile case in which it is alleged that the minor committed a CVRA offense.” In re Lee, 282 Mich App 90, 95 (2009). MCL 780.786b specifically requires:

“(1) Except for a dismissal based upon a judicial finding on the record that the petition and the facts supporting it are insufficient to support a claim of jurisdiction under [MCL 712A.2(a)(1)] . . . ,a case involving the alleged commission of an offense, as defined in [MCL 780.781], by a juvenile shall not be diverted, placed on the consent calendar, or made subject to any other prepetition or preadjudication procedure that removes the case from the adjudicative process unless the court gives written notice to the prosecuting attorney of the court’s intent to remove the case from the adjudicative process and allows the prosecuting attorney the opportunity to address the court on that issue before the case is removed from the adjudicative process. Before any formal or informal action is taken, the prosecutor shall give the victim notice of the time and place of the hearing on the proposed removal of the case from the adjudicative process.^[10] The victim has the right to attend the hearing and to address the court at the hearing. As part of any other order removing any case from the adjudicative process, the court shall order the juvenile or the juvenile’s parents to provide full restitution as provided in [MCL 780.794].^[11]

(2) Before finalizing any informal disposition, preadjudication, or expedited procedure, the prosecuting attorney shall offer the victim the opportunity to consult with the prosecuting attorney to obtain the views of the victim about that manner of disposing of the case.”¹²

“[T]he plain language of MCL 780.786b(1) requires notice to the prosecutor and the victim of the alleged offense of the time and place of a hearing ‘before the case is removed from the adjudicative process.’” In re Lee, 282 Mich App at 104 (disagreeing with the trial court’s “conclusion that it can comply with MCL 780.786b(1) by scheduling a hearing after it has rendered its ruling to transfer a CVRA case to the consent calendar[]” but ultimately concluding that the court did actually comply with the notice requirements).

“It is true that MCL 780.786b(1) requires the trial court to give notice to the prosecution before conducting a ‘prepetition or preadjudication procedure that removes the case from the adjudicative process.’ However, MCL 780.786b recognizes a trial court’s authority to remove a case from the adjudicative process preadjudication, so long as the trial court complies with certain procedural requirements.” In re D, 329 Mich App 671, 693 (2019) (“on the basis of the plain language of MCL 780.786b(1), the trial court was permitted to remove the second and third petitions from the adjudicative process because those petitions had not yet been adjudicated”).

1.​Trial Court’s Compliance With CVRA Requirements

a.​Trial Court Complied With CVRA Requirements

The trial court complied with the requirements of MCL 780.786b(1) where although written notice was not provided to the victim, the court gave oral notice to counsel at the first dispositional hearing of its belief that the consent calendar was appropriate for the case, the victim was present at this hearing and expressed her views to the court, the prosecutor spoke with the victim and stated its and the victim’s objections to reassigning the case, and the court followed up with a letter to the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel informing them “that the court believed the case was an appropriate one for the consent calendar, and that ‘it is appropriate for us to appear in court, on the record, so that all concerns and objections can be codified.’” In re Lee, 282 Mich App at 104-105. “Although the court’s notice of the time and place scheduled for the hearing did not specifically state that the purpose was to consider removing the case from the adjudicative process,” the letter informing the parties that it believed the case was appropriate for the consent calendar “constituted substantial compliance with MCL 780.786b(1) and MCR 3.932(B).” In re Lee, 282 Mich App at 105.

b.​Trial Court Failed to Comply with CVRA Requirements

The trial court “failed to comply with the requirements of MCL 780.786b(1) by not providing the prosecutor with written notice of the court’s intent to remove the case from the adjudicative process and notice of the time and place of a hearing on the proposed removal[ where a]lthough the court furnished the prosecutor notice of an adjudicative-dispositional hearing, nothing in that written notice apprised the prosecutor that the court might remove the case from the adjudicative process by transferring the case to the court’s consent calendar.” In re Lee, 282 Mich App at 98-99.

2.​Placement on Consent Calendar

“After a case is placed on the consent calendar, the prosecutor shall provide the victim with notice as required by [the CVRA, Article 2 (Juvenile Article)].”¹³ MCL 712A.2f(6).

The victim and prosecutor may, but are not required, to be present for the consent calendar hearing that the court must conduct with “the juvenile, the juvenile’s attorney, if any, and the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian to discuss the allegations.” MCL 712A.2f(8). If the court determines that the juvenile engaged in conduct that subjects the juvenile to the court’s jurisdiction, it must issue a written consent calendar plan. MCL 712A.2f(9). The written plan must include, among other provisions, “a requirement that the juvenile pay restitution under the [CVRA].”¹⁴ MCL 712A.2f(9)(a).

For additional information on the procedural steps of consent calendars, see MCL 712A.2f and MCR 3.932(C).