HB 683-FN - AS INTRODUCED

AN ACT relative to escape or attempted escape from a juvenile facility.

SPONSORS: Rep. Gilman, Graf 9; Rep. Bicknell, Rock 73; Rep. Buhlman, Hills 66; Rep. Sorg, Graf 11; Rep. Kennedy, Merr 34

AN ACT relative to escape or attempted escape from a juvenile facility.

AN ACT relative to escape or attempted escape from a juvenile facility.

The Judicial Branch, Judicial Council and Department of Corrections have stated this bill may increase state expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2004 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on county and local expenditures or state, county and local revenue.

The Judicial Branch stated this bill amends RSA 169-8:24, IV, the section listing certain crimes in which there is a presumption that the factors for treatment as an adult have been met if the juvenile who committed these crimes when fifteen or older. The proposed amendment adds to this list of crimes escape or attempted escape from a juvenile facility. This bill would also repeal RSA 169-B:4, IV(a), which currently allows the juvenile to revoke his consent to the court's retention of jurisdiction after the juvenile's seventeenth birthday. Thus, if this bill is enacted, once the juvenile consents to extended jurisdiction, he could not revoke it. Regarding the addition of escape or attempted escape from a juvenile facility to the list of crimes in which there is a presumption that the factors for treatment as an adult have been met, the fiscal impact to the judicial branch should be minimal. There are few charges of escape or attempted escape from a juvenile facility and, given prosecutorial discretion, not all will be charged as adult crimes. Therefore, the judicial branch does not anticipate more than a minimal fiscal impact from this provision. Similarly, the number of individuals over whom the district court retains jurisdiction after age seventeen is not large and few revoke their consent to that jurisdiction. All that would be involved for the potential few who under this proposal could not revoke their consent is the continuation of review hearings until age twenty-one. The number of reviews in these situations is very limited. Any new offense committed would be brought as an adult case anyway. Therefor, the provision of this bill for not allowing revocation of consent to extended jurisdiction should also have minimal fiscal impact on the judicial branch.

The Judicial Council stated this bill provides that escape or attempted escape from a juvenile facility may constitute grounds for transfer of a minor to the superior court for proceedings as an adult punishable as a new class A felony under certain circumstances. These circumstances include when the minor is charged with any felony and prior to the filing of the felony petition, the minor has been petitioned to the court on four or more occasions and adjudicated delinquent in 4 separate adjudicatory hearings which alleged misdemeanor or felony offenses, and the minor commits the act after the minor's fifteenth birthday, there shall be a presumption that the factors listed in RSA 169-B:24,I to support transfer to the superior court. The scope of this new class A felony charge is limited by the circumstances previously detailed. This new felony can only be charged when the juvenile has been previously adjudicated delinquent on four separate offenses and this new felony of escape or attempted escape is committed after the fifteenth birthday. Only then shall the presumption support transfer to the superior court with the new class A felony. Based upon the scope of the application of this bill, it is narrowly aimed at a very specific event and potential population. This will reduce the potential fiscal impact of the bill. The Council stated, however, there is no doubt that a case so transferred to the superior court will be very aggressively litigated as there is so much at stake for the juvenile so charged. The Council state that it is not possible to accurately predict the number of cases which may result from this bill. Therefor, the Council is unable to calculate an exact fiscal impact. It is assumed that the individual so charged has been determined to be indigent, at which time the court will proceed to appoint an attorney to represent the defendant. The significance of this bill is that the new charge will take the case out of the juvenile system and put it into the adult superior court felony. If a public defender or contract attorney is appointed to the case, the fixed contract rate of $687.50 will apply to each case so charged. If an assigned counsel attorney must be used, due to either conflict of interest or for reasons of caseload limitations, the $60 per hour rate will apply to the case, with a fee cap of $3,000. The fee cap may be waived upon motion filed in advance with the court. If any "services other than counsel" are filed as a necessary part of the defense of a case, those costs would also be a charge to Indigent Defense funds.

The Department of Justice stated the Department seldom becomes involved in prosecutions of juveniles, and it is assumed they will continue not to be involved. If the Department were involved, the number of instances would be negligible and the cost of prosecution should not increase.

The Department of Corrections stated the Juvenile Services Division has statistics showing 47 people AWOL from the facility for FY 2002 and 47 people escaping from furloughs and parole, but there are no figures to show how many would be punishable as a Class A felony. The average cost of incarceration for FY 2002 was $24,866 per inmate per year.