California's juvenile justice system is founded on the principle that juveniles should be given a second chance. It is rehabilitative-oriented and has different courts and services aimed at helping minors outgrow engaging in crime. Nevertheless, when a minor commits a grave crime, the law provides exceptional cases where they can be tried as adults. It is not an automatic process and is governed by legal rules established through reforms like Proposition 57 and Senate Bill 1391, which limit and restrict such transfers. This guide will assist you in knowing the rules, exceptions, and the process when a minor is confronted with the prospect of being charged as an adult in California.

A Minor That is 16 or 17 Years Old

The Age Criteria for Adult Court Eligibility

In California, a child's age is the initial and most conclusive criterion in a minor's eligibility to be tried as an adult. State law now prohibits trying minors under 16 as adults, due to Senate Bill 1391, passed in 2018. In particular, only minors aged 16 or 17 at the moment of the alleged commission of a serious felony can be transferred to the adult criminal court. The law sets this age because 16-year-olds are believed to better understand right from wrong.

The under-16 Legal Barrier

Minors under 16 are legally barred from being transferred to adult court. A landmark legislation, Senate Bill 1391, abolished the chance of trying 14- and 15-year-olds as adults. This law strengthened California’s focus on helping minors change, not punishing them.

Late Apprehension Exception

The only exception is when a minor who was 14 or 15 years old at the time of the offense is not caught until after 18. Also referred to as the late apprehension exception, this enables prosecutors to prosecute the individual in the adult court, which solves the issue of handling legal adults whose offenses were committed while underage.

The Reason Why 16- and 17-Year-Olds Are Treated Differently

This rule is based on science, court decisions, and public safety concerns. The brains of adolescents are not fully developed yet, although older teenagers usually understand the consequences and legal proceedings better.

California’s current approach balances scientific understanding of adolescent development and the need to protect public safety. This marks a shift from earlier laws like Proposition 21 (2000), which allowed prosecutors to try 14-year-olds as adults. In 2021, the California Supreme Court upheld Senate Bill 1391 as a valid step toward reinforcing judicial discretion and age-based protections for minors.

The Legal Process

Cases involving 16- or 17-year-olds must begin in juvenile court, not adult court. If the prosecutor feels the juvenile system is not the right place, they should file a motion for a transfer or fitness hearing. The minor's age at the moment of the crime is a rigid precondition even to the request of such a hearing.

This makes sure that only the minors who are 16 or 17 can be prosecuted as adults, leaving the juvenile system to younger offenders.

If the Minor Committed a Serious Felony

Adult Court Transfer is only Possible in Serious Offenses

The second requirement under which a minor can be tried as an adult in California is the nature of the alleged crime committed. Transfer to adult court is allowed only for crimes listed under Welfare & Institutions Code § 707(b).

Only minors accused of very violent or serious crimes can be transferred to adult court. If the alleged offense is not included in this list, the transfer to adult court is not legally permissible, irrespective of the minor's age.

Crimes in the WIC 707(b) List

The WIC 707(b) list is long and divided by type. It includes:

  • Homicide: Murder, voluntary manslaughter

  • Violent crimes: Aggravated mayhem, torture, assault that is likely to cause significant bodily injury

  • Weapons-related crimes: shooting with a weapon, drive-by shooting, carjacking with a weapon

  • Gang- or weapon-augmented felonies

  • Sex crimes: Rape by force, lewd acts on a child, sodomy by force

  • Other serious offences: Robbery, kidnapping with ransom, arson with significant bodily injury, drug trafficking, bribing or intimidating witnesses

Aggravating Circumstances Taken into Account

A charge of a 707(b) offense does not guarantee transfer. Instead, it gives the prosecutor the option to seek a fitness hearing, in which a judge takes into account aggravating circumstances, including:

  • Rashness or deliberation

  • Gang activity

  • Employment of lethal weapons

  • Grave physical harm to victims

This ensures that only minors who commit the most serious offenses are sent to the adult system, leaving the juvenile system to handle most cases.

If the Judge Approves the Transfer Process After a Fitness Hearing

A fitness hearing is a formal court hearing in a California juvenile court, also known as a transfer or waiver hearing. It decides whether a juvenile delinquent who committed a serious offense should be tried in the juvenile or adult criminal court. The aim is to determine whether the minor is fit for the rehabilitative nature of the juvenile system or the severity of the case warrants a prosecution at the adult level.

The proceedings start when the prosecutor files a motion seeking the transfer. This hearing is usually held between the detention hearing and adjudication. The hearing must not be held without at least five days' notice to the minor and their attorney. At the fitness hearing, the prosecution must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the minor is unsuitable for rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system.

Five Factors that The Judge Takes into Account

The judge considers five factors in the Welfare & Institutions Code § 707(a)(3) in the hearing. They are supposed to evaluate not only the crime but also the personal traits and conditions of the minor.

  1. The Nature of the Offense

The court looks at the nature of the offense, whether the crime was planned or complex, and the role the minor played. Other factors considered are:

  • Age

  • Maturity

  • Mental and emotional well-being

  • Whether the action was impulsive or planned

Courts are more lenient to minors whose bad decisions are attributed to their age.

  1. Probability of Rehabilitation Under 18

The judge also looks at the possibility of the juvenile programs successfully rehabilitating the minor. While juvenile court jurisdiction generally ends at age 18, it can be extended until age 25 in certain cases. The focus is on positive change and the minor's growth and maturity.

  1. Juvenile Delinquency History

The court reviews the minor’s criminal history, including whether they have committed crimes before and what environmental or family factors contributed to their behavior. A trauma history is also taken into consideration when assessing the responsibility and likelihood of the minor reoffending.

  1. Success or Failure of Prior Rehabilitation

This aspect considers the success of past rehabilitation. The judge considers the involvement of the minor in the services available, the suitability of such services, and the failure of previous court interventions because of the minor's resistance or inadequate support.

SB 1391 generally prohibits trying minors under 16 in adult court. Nevertheless, it allows an exception if the individual was not arrested until after turning 18, proving that age at the time of the offense is a primary consideration.

  1. Circumstances and Gravity of the Crime

The judge also pays close attention to the particular conduct during the commission of the crime, the mental state of the minor, and any actual harm caused. The court may also consider whether the minor was a victim of trafficking, assault, or sexual abuse in the past, which could have contributed to the behavior in the cases of violence or abuse.

  1. The Role of a Juvenile Probation Officer

The report of the juvenile probation officer is essential to the hearing as it gives the judge a detailed picture of the minor's personal background, setting, and conduct. This report contains:

  • The minor’s school records

  • Their criminal history

  • Home environment

  • Trauma

  • Substance use

This report helps the court evaluate all five factors of fitness fairly, and it should be provided to the minor, their guardian, and legal counsel at least two days before the commencement of the hearing.

During the hearing, evidence is given by both parties:

  • The prosecutor argues that the minor is unfit

  • The defense attorney presents mitigating factors for rehabilitation

The Evolution to Rehabilitation

Over the past two decades, the juvenile justice system in California has changed tremendously. Laws that were initially meant to punish minors have been transformed into rehabilitation and judicial supervision. These reforms are included in the broader transformation of the legal system concerning juvenile offenders, rehabilitation, and judicial discretion compared to automatic prosecution in the adult court.

This development helps us learn how the law treats minors in the current world.

The Proposition 21 Era (2000)

In 2000, voters passed a hard-on-crime initiative, Proposition 21, which increased the power of prosecutors and decreased judges' discretion.

Some of the key provisions included the following:

  • Direct File: Prosecutors would have the option of trying 14-year-olds and above directly in adult court, bypassing juvenile court judges entirely

  • Mandatory Transfer: Prosecutors had to charge some minors (14 and older) with crimes such as murder and serious sex offenses as adults, and there was no judicial review possible

Proposition 21 resulted in many minors being tried and sent to the adult system.

Proposition 57: The Turning Point (2016)

As the issue of the effect of Prop 21 became an issue, the voters enacted Proposition 57, which gave back to the judicial system the discretion of transferring minors to adult court, curbing the power of the prosecutors, and focusing more on a rehabilitative approach as per the principles of juvenile justice.

Some of the key reforms include the following:

  • Elimination of Direct File: Prosecutors were no longer able to file cases directly in adult court

  • Restoration of Judicial Discretion: All cases of minors should be initiated in juvenile court, and only after a full fitness hearing by a judge are transfers permitted

This step underlined the importance of judges, rather than prosecutors, determining the minor's ability to be rehabilitated. Prop 57 reiterated the fact that children should not be treated as adults without due process and judicial scrutiny of their background and whether they can be reformed.

Enhancement of Protections: Senate Bill 1391 (2018)

Senate Bill 1391, enacted after Prop 57, eliminated transfers of minors under 16 to adult court. A limited exception exists if they were not arrested until after age 18.

Some of the significant changes include the following:

  • Age Restriction: It was illegal to attempt to prosecute minors under 16 as adults (with limited exceptions)

  • Explanation to Older Teens: Transfer hearings are available only to 16- and 17-year-olds who have been charged with WIC 707(b) serious felonies

The only exception is when the minor was not apprehended until they were at least 18 years old.

This statute clarified that only minors aged 16 or 17 accused of serious 707(b) offenses may be eligible for adult court transfer only after a judicial fitness hearing.

SB 1391 strengthened the legal system that emphasized rehabilitation of juveniles and limited the route to the adult court to 16- or 17-year-olds.

California Supreme Court Decision (2021)

In 2021, the California Supreme Court affirmed SB 1391, saying it was a valid amendment to Proposition 57 and did not conflict with the voters' intent. This ruling reaffirmed that the existing legal standard, which prevents the transfer of minors under 16 to adult courts, is not going anywhere.

Today, only minors who are 16 or 17 years old can be tried as adults, and only under the condition:

  • They are accused of a grave offense that is found in Welfare & Institutions Code 707(b)

  • A juvenile court judge endorses the transfer after a fitness hearing

These laws indicate a trend in California that the justice system needs to treat children and adults differently because children can change, and rehabilitation is a priority.

Juvenile Court vs. Adult Court

The struggle to retain a case of a minor in the juvenile justice system is not only about legal procedure but also about a child's future. California's juvenile and adult court systems are based on different philosophies, resulting in significant differences in process, punishment, and long-term outcomes. It is critical to understand these differences to comprehend the seriousness of a fitness hearing and the impact that waiving a minor to adult court may have.

Rehabilitation or Punishment

The juvenile court system is focused on rehabilitation. It does so assuming that minors are still developing and can reform. The aim is to deal with the root causes of the minor behavior, trauma or substance abuse and lead them to be law-abiding adults.

Conversely, the adult criminal court is more punitive and deterrent. Although it might provide certain rehabilitation services, it aims to punish people to the fullest extent and safeguard society by imprisoning them. After transfer, the minors are no longer considered as developing youth but adult defendants who are subjected to all the punishments of the criminal justice system.

Procedural and Practical Differences

  • Jury Trial and Law Vocabulary

The defendant is entitled to a jury trial in the adult court. Juvenile court does not use juries; the judge listens to the evidence and decides everything. The legal language is also different: adults are “convicted” and sentenced, and minors have petitions “sustained” and a disposition.

  • Confidential vs. Public Record

Records and proceedings in juvenile court are confidential to safeguard the minor's future. Many juvenile records may be sealed in the future so that young people may attend college, work, or serve in the military without being stigmatized.

Conviction in adult court leaves a permanent public record that may have a detrimental impact on employment, housing, education, and licensing throughout a person's life. An error at 16 or 17 may be lifelong.

  • Sentencing and Punishment

Juvenile court sentences vary and often include probation, counseling, or community service, though serious offenses can result in mandatory detention; it is usually accompanied by education and treatment services.

In the adult court, serious felonies may lead to long prison terms. A 17-year-old tried and convicted of murder in adult court may face a lengthy prison sentence, although parole options for minors may apply. This is about punishment and incapacitation, rather than rehabilitation of the youth.

Find an Efficient Juvenile Defense Attorney Near Me

California law only permits minors to be tried as adults in exceptional and severe cases. A minor should be 16 or 17 and accused of a violent felony enumerated in the Welfare and Institutions Code 77 (b). They should also be deemed unfit in a juvenile court following a fitness hearing presided over by a judge. Reforms such as Proposition 57 and Senate Bill 1391 have limited juvenile delinquents' transfer to the adult court, with more focus on rehabilitation than punishment. The system aims to retain most juveniles in the more supportive juvenile system.

At The LA Criminal Defense Law Firm, our lawyers are ready to help you understand how the juvenile system works. Contact us today at 310-935-1675 to speak to a juvenile defense attorney who can help defend your child's legal rights and future.