Admissibility of Juvenile Records During the Punishment Phase of Trial

Issue:

Are the revocation of probation, modification of disposition, and commitment orders of the revocation of a juvenile’s probation admissible during the punishment phase of a subsequent criminal proceeding?

Short Answer:

No. Only the Fort Worth Court of Appeals has ruled on the admissibility of these records during the punishment phase of trial. It held the proceedings revoking juvenile probation are not adjudications and the records were not admissible. And the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to grant a petition for discretionary review for a case which distinguished the admissibility of juvenile adjudication records from the inadmissibility of the records of the proceedings to revoke juvenile probation.

Discussion:

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows both the State and the Defense to offer evidence “as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing. . . .” including the defendant’s prior criminal record, reputation, and character, the opinion of a witness concerning his character, and extraneous criminal acts or unadjudicated bad acts as long as they are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Ann. art. 37.07 sec. 3(a)(1). And a defendant’s juvenile adjudications of delinquency for felonies and misdemeanors punishable by confinement in jail are admissible, notwithstanding Rule 609(d) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Id.; Rodriguez v. State, 975 S.W.2d 667, 687 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, pet. ref’d). This creates great freedom for a trial judge to enter practically all evidence either the State or the Defense offers into evidence.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not ruled on the admissibility of the Revocation of Probation Order, Modification of Disposition Order, and Commitment Order of juvenile proceedings during the punishment phase of a subsequent criminal proceeding. And only one court of appeals has ruled on their admissibility, holding revocation and modification proceedings for juvenile probationers are not adjudications subject to article 37.07 (a)(1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Murphy v. State, 860 S.W.2d 639, 643 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993, no pet.).

In Murphy, the defendant was convicted for voluntary manslaughter. Id. at 641. Years before, the defendant had been adjudicated as a juvenile for a misdemeanor offense and was placed on juvenile probation. Id. at 641. After the adjudication for the misdemeanor offense, the defendant, while still a juvenile, committed a felony. Id. Rather than adjudicate the defendant for the felony offense, the State revoked his probation and committed him to the Texas Youth Commission. Id. During the punishment phase of the defendant’s trial, the State, over the defendant’s objection, entered the Revocation of Probation Order, Modification of Disposition Order, and Commitment Order for the defendant’s misdemeanor adjudication. Id. at 641-42. The appellate court held the revocation and modification hearings of the defendant were not adjudications and “merely revoked” the defendant’s juvenile probation for his misdemeanor offense. Id. at 642-43 (citing J.K.A. v. State, 855 S.W.2d 58, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied); Matter of A.M.B., 676 S.W.2d 448, 451 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ). Because the revocation proceedings were not adjudications, the revocation of probation, modification of disposition, and commitment orders of the revocation of the defendant’s juvenile probation were inadmissible during the punishment phase of the defendant’s trial. Id.

And even though the Court of Criminal Appeals has not ruled on the admissibility juvenile records other than juvenile adjudication records, it recognized a distinction between records of a juvenile adjudication and records of proceedings for the revocation of juvenile probation. See generally Rodriguez v. State, 975 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, pet. ref’d). In Rodriguez, the defendant, relying heavily on Murphy v. State, objected to the admission of his prior juvenile adjudication for the burglary of a motor vehicle. Id. at 686. The court rejected the defendant’s claim because adjudication of the defendant’s delinquency was not at issue where the defendant in Murphy was never adjudicated for the offense which resulted in the revocation of his juvenile probation. Id. at 687. And by refusing to grant the defendant’s petition, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the opinion of the Texarkana court and gave it the same precedential value as an opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 56.1(c).

Nevertheless, although the revocation of probation, modification of disposition, and commitment orders of the revocation of a juvenile’s probation are not admissible during the punishment phase of trial, the act resulting in the revocation of juvenile probation is admissible. Rodriguez, 975 S.W.2d at 687. Even offenses committed while the defendant was a juvenile, which were not adjudicated, are admissible under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.07 section 3(a) as long as the State meets the requirements therein for the admission of prior, unadjudicated bad acts. Id.; McMillan v. State, 926 S.W.2d 809, 813 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1996, pet. ref’d).

Conclusion:

The revocation of probation, modification of disposition, and commitment orders of the revocation of a juvenile’s probation are not admissible during the punishment phase of trial. But the State can still use other evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the event resulting in the revocation of the defendant’s juvenile probation.