Juvenile Law Commons^™

Minors Under The Age Of Seven; Incapable Of Primary Negligence Or Intentional Torts; Conclusive Presumption; Deluca V. Bowden, Robert Austin Cross

Akron Law Review

The only question considered by the supreme court was "whether a child under the age of seven is liable for primary negligence or for an intentional tort." The court noted the general incapacity of a child of this age to act with reason and foresight, and further expressed its own reluctance to attach blame to a child "in any sense comparable to the blame attachable to an adult." For these reasons it held that such a child shall be conclusively presumed incapable of both primary negligence and intentional tort.

In so holding, Ohio joins a distinct minority of states which …

The Waiver Of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction; State V. Adams, Antonia Johnson

Akron Law Review

Since Illinois created the first juvenile court system by statute in 1899, every state has enacted a juvenile justice system philosophically designed to help rather than to punish children who violate the law. The juvenile court from its inception has advocated the protection of misbehaving children from the harsh retributive philosophy of the adult criminal law. Instead of punishment it has attempted to provide methods by which to assist them to develop into mature, responsible adults.

Yet, from its inception, the proponents of the separate, specialized juvenile justice system have presumed that some children would not respond positively to its …

The High Price Of Poverty: A Study Of How The Majority Of Current Court System Procedures For Collecting Court Costs And Fees, As Well As Fines, Have Failed To Adhere To Established Precedent And The Constitutional Guarantees They Advocate., Trevor J. Calligan

Trevor J Calligan

No abstract provided.

State V. Sorenson: The Adequacy Of The Residual Exceptions In Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Five-Part Test Puts An End To The Criticism, Robert G. Renis

Akron Law Review

In State v. Sorenson, a seven-year-old girl's father and uncle had sexual intercourse with her. The court allowed a social worker to testify as to what the girl had told her. Finally, a court has set forth a detailed test for use in determining the admissibility of hearsay evidence in child sexual abuse cases. This casenote will analyze the court's five-part test, and discuss how it was applied in Sorenson. The casenote will then compare the Sorenson test (used in conjunction with the residual exceptions) to statutes providing for specific hearsay exceptions in child sexual abuse cases.

Cognitive Dissonance Revisited: Roper V. Simmons And The Issue Of Adolescent Decision-Making Competence, 52 Wayne L. Rev. 1 (2006), Donald L. Beschle

Donald L. Beschle

No abstract provided.

An Eighth Amendment Analysis Of Statutes Allowing Or Mandating Transfer Of Juvenile Offenders To Adult Criminal Court In Light Of The Supreme Court's Recent Jurisprudence Recognizing Developmental Neuroscience, Katherine I. Puzone

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Ambiguous-Purpose Statements Of Children And Other Victims Of Abuse Under The Confrontation Clause, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The author examines in this paper two kinds of ambiguous-purpose out-of-court statements that are especially problematic under current Confrontation law--problematic in ways that we hope will be solved directly or indirectly by the Supreme Court when it renders its decision in Ohio v. Clark. The statements he examines are:

(1) Statements made by abused children concerning their abuse, for example to police, physicians, teachers, welfare workers, baby sitters, or family members, some of whom may be under a legal duty to report suspected abuse to legal authorities. At least some of these statements will be directly addressed by the …