Juveniles charged with violent crime have no right to a jury trial, state Supreme Court rules

OLYMPIA — A juvenile charged with a violent crime has no state constitutional right to a jury trial, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court upheld a Court of Appeals ruling in the case of Azel Chavez. Chavez was convicted in juvenile court of several counts, including attempted first-degree murder, first-degree robbery while armed with a firearm, and second-degree assault while armed with a firearm.

In 2004, Chavez, who was 14 at the time, was accused of planning to kill three Sequim High School football coaches he was angry with. He led police on a high-speed three-county chase that ended when he collided head-on with a police car on the Hood Canal Bridge.

He was sentenced by a Clallam County judge in 2005 to up to seven years in juvenile detention, plus a 12-month firearm enhancement.

The majority rejected Chavez's assertion that juveniles who commit violent crimes are essentially treated like adult offenders, and should be allowed to have a jury trial. The high court has ruled the same in prior cases.

The court noted that even though the Washington state Constitution assures the right to a jury trial, state law has affirmed that juvenile court cases are tried without a jury.

The high court said that because of well-defined differences between Washington's juvenile justice and adult criminal systems, there is no violation of constitutional provisions.

The majority, led by Justice Charles Johnson, noted that Chavez opposed the state's motion to have him tried as an adult, where he would have had a jury trial, and that by remaining in the juvenile system, "Chavez received a substantially lesser penalty upon finding of guilt."

Joining Johnson were Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, and Justices Susan Owens, Mary E. Fairhurst, James Johnson and Justice Pro Tem. Bobbe Bridge.

The majority also upheld the Court of Appeals ruling that the state Legislature did not violate the separation of powers doctrine by permitting the court to define through common law the elements of assault.

The high court said that even with changes that have been made to the Juvenile Justice Act, there are enough differences between adult and juvenile court to continue without jury trials for juveniles.

"The claim that changes to the juvenile justice system make its focus punitive and no longer rehabilitative has been posited and consistently rejected by this court," Johnson wrote.

But the dissent, led by Justice Barbara Madsen, said even though the juvenile justice system is focused more on rehabilitation, "recognizing a right to trial by jury is not inconsistent with this defining aspect of the juvenile justice system."