By: Hannah Lucas
State ex rel. T.J. v. Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d 353 (Mo. 2021).
I. INTRODUCTION
In 2018, the Missouri General Assembly enacted a law to “Raise the Age” for automatically trying certain juveniles as adults within the criminal system.1 For T.J., a seventeen-year-old in Missouri, and for many juvenile service providers, this law was the subject of confusion due to an ambiguity within the law regarding the effective date.2 The Supreme Court of Missouri had to resolve this dispute to clarify which law was applicable to T.J. and when the jurisdiction of the juvenile division was actually broadened.3 This case provides a clear example of how important it is that the legislature pass unequivocal laws because it can make all the difference in the lives of Missourians, such as T.J.
II. FACTS AND HOLDING
T.J., a seventeen-year-old in Missouri, was charged in adult court for three felony offenses on January 4, 2021.4 The case was initiated in adult court, and T.J. moved to dismiss the prosecution, arguing that 2018 Raise the Age legislation gave the juvenile division jurisdiction over the case.5 The Circuit Court overruled the motion and directed the prosecution to move forward.6 T.J. then sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Missouri to prevent the prosecution from continuing.7
A writ of prohibition is primarily used as a last resort, and the Supreme Court of Missouri quashed T.J.’s application for a preliminary writ of prohibition.8 The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the Circuit Court did not exceed its authority because the Raise the Age law did not go into effect until July 1, 2021, when the appropriate funds were allocated.9 This meant that the prosecution of T.J. could move forward in adult court because, at the time of his charges, the law in Missouri considered him an “adult” despite the passage of the Raise the Age bill.10
III. LEGAL BACKGROUND
Missouri law surrounding the treatment of juvenile individuals as adults within criminal prosecutions has been the subject of multiple amendments, which are at issue within this case.
A. Missouri Statutes
The relevant Missouri statute is R.S.Mo. § 211.021(1) and (2). Prior to amendments by the legislature, the law stated that an adult was someone seventeen years of age or older, and a child was a person under the age of seventeen.11 In 2008, the law was amended to define an adult as “a person seventeen years of age or older except for seventeen-year-old children defined in this section.”12 This included an exception for people who are over seventeen but not yet eighteen and committed a status offense.13 Status offenses are those which are only criminal behavior when committed by juveniles, such as skipping school, violating curfew, running away, etc.14 With the 2008 amendments, the general assembly also included a funding contingency provision, stating that the amendments made would not be effective until the general assembly appropriated funding for the changes to be implemented.15
The 2008 amendments were the first step to treating seventeen-year-olds as juveniles, but it was not until 2018 that the age of majority was officially changed to eighteen.16 In 2018, through Senate Bill 793, the Missouri General Assembly amended chapter 211 again, changing the definitions of “adult” and “child” and providing another funding contingency provision.17 In this change, the definition of “adult” became a person who is over the age of eighteen, and “child” became a person under eighteen years of age.18 Under the revisions, the law would not go into effect until an appropriation sufficient to fund the expanded services was allocated.19 The General Assembly also included a provision that stated the new amendments to the law become effective on January 1, 2021.20 This created a disparity, which caused confusion regarding when the law became effective, leaving the decision up to juvenile divisions on whether to expand their services.21
After the law was originally passed in 2018, it became clear that it was not fully in effect due to the lack of appropriation— even though there was an effective date, which prompted the General Assembly to amend the law again in 2021.22 The changes in 2021 repealed § 211.438 to make the law go into effect immediately, because the legislature found it necessary for public safety, health, welfare, and peace requiring immediate action.23 The Legislature also provided the appropriate funding to juvenile services, which went into effect on July 1, 2021.24 Chapter 211 of Missouri law was amended in the hopes of clearing up any discrepancies or ambiguities.25
B. Statutory Interpretation Methods
When evaluating the ambiguity left in the statute until the amendments in 2021, the Supreme Court of Missouri used many common law methods of statutory interpretation.26 First, the Supreme Court of Missouri used State ex rel. Robinson v. Lindley-Myers, which stated that in interpreting ambiguities within statutes, the court must give effect to the legislative intent within the plain language.27 This requires the court to read the statute’s language as a whole in order to derive the legislative intent and resolve the ambiguity by applying what the legislature intended to occur.28
Deference to the legislature’s knowledge of the law is another statutory tool used in Missouri common law.29 In Missouri law, there is a presumption that gives the legislature deference that it knew the state of the law when it enacted the changes.30 Even more deference is given to the legislature in that whenever it amends a law, there is a presumption that it intended to change the existing law.31 When reviewing these statutory interpretation issues, the Supreme Court of Missouri will also construe all the provisions together, and if possible — harmonize the provisions together.32 Missouri also follows the absurdity rule, which means that courts will not interpret statutes in a way that yields unreasonable or absurd results.33
IV. INSTANT DECISION
In this case, the Supreme Court of Missouri ultimately had to resolve an ambiguity in the Raise the Age law caused by the differing statutes regarding the day the law went into effect.34 Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled in favor of the state and quashed T.J.’s writ of prohibition, ruling that the Raise the Age legislation became effective on July 1, 2021, when the funding became available to juvenile divisions.35
T.J. argued that the court should rule in his favor because R.S.Mo. § 211.439 provided that the law became effective January 1, 2021, which was 3 days before his criminal case was initiated.36 The State argued that R.S.Mo. § 211.438 provided that adult court still had jurisdiction for T.J.’s case because the legislature did not allocate funds that were not received until July 1, 2021, when the new state budget was in effect.37 As such, the discrepancy in Chapter 211 was whether the law was effective on January 1, 2021, under § 211.439 or effective July 1, 2021, as dictated in § 211.438.38 To resolve this, the Supreme Court of Missouri looked at the law as a whole, including both provisions that seemingly contradict, to harmoniously resolve the ambiguity.39 The Court decided § 211.439 provided that January 1, 2021 was the earliest date possible for the legislation to take effect, but it was not intended to be the actual effective date.40 Under this line of reasoning, the Court held that § 211.438 provides that the effective date of the law is only when the general assembly actually appropriated the funds, which happened on July 1, 2021.41
The Court found that T.J. was 17 years old when he committed the offense, and because the Raise the Age law was not effective until funding was available on July 1, 2021, he was subject to the general jurisdiction of the adult court.42 T.J. also argued that even if the court found that § 211.438 provided the effective date, it did not apply to him because he was not trying to receive any juvenile services but was only questioning the jurisdictional authority.43 In response to this, a juvenile officer testified that juvenile services are rendered during the adjudication process and if T.J. were to be found guilty, his sentence would be allocated through juvenile service resources.44
The Supreme Court of Missouri also used this juvenile officer’s testimony regarding the funding to resolve the ambiguity because of the absurdity rule.45 When asked about the expansion of services without any additional funding, the juvenile officer testified that doing so would be “prohibitively expensive,” which the court determined to be unreasonable.46 The Court noted that in resolving the ambiguity, it would be absurd for the Court to rule that the law required services to be expanded even without any additional resources, especially when the law affirmatively provided for the opposite.47
This dispute regarding the jurisdiction of T.J.’s criminal adjudication was decided by interpreting the intention of the legislature, which the Supreme Court of Missouri determined was for the law to become effective when the legislature allocated appropriations.48 T.J.’s case would go on in adult court, and any other questions that would arise regarding whether the law was effective would be answered by the opinion.49
V. COMMENT
The legislative intent behind raising the age of majority for juvenile adjudications was the subject of dispute. There is a record supporting the argument that the intention of the legislature was to treat children as children, for both public policy and economic reasons.50 Before this case was adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the legislature repealed § 211.438,51 which supports the reasoning that they intended for the law to be effective before July 1, 2021.
Based on the available methods of statutory interpretation, this case was properly decided. This case is an example of why the legislature’s responsibility to the people of Missouri to get the law right in the first place is of utmost importance. The Supreme Court of Missouri was compelled to make the decision it did, because of the way the law was constructed. The six-month difference between treating T.J. as a juvenile or an adult within the criminal system was not enough of a factor, even though T.J.’s crime was committed two years after the law was originally passed.
There is a major difference in the treatment of juveniles and adults within the criminal justice system.52 One goal of the juvenile system is rehabilitation, and resources are aimed at helping juveniles lead a successful life away from criminal activity.53 Going through the juvenile system instead of the adult criminal process can lead to varied life outcomes.54 After the juvenile process is complete for certain offenses, the record is usually private and unable to be accessed by the public, which leads to less of the stigma that often comes with a criminal history.55
It is alarming to see that the law recognizes that seventeen-year-olds should be treated as children instead of adults, because that is what they are, yet the law still allows them to be processed through the adult court system.56 Adolescents’ brains are not yet developed and their decision-making capabilities are not the same as adults’ capabilities.57 Despite the fact that this can be a harmful avenue, the law continues to allow children like T.J. to pass through the system without regard to the effect that it will have on their liberty and life, instead choosing to favor only the state’s bottom line.
VI. CONCLUSION
In State ex rel. T.J. v. Cundiff, the Supreme Court of Missouri had to resolve an ambiguity in the Raise the Age law, which led juveniles in Missouri to fall under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal court system, despite recognizing that it is not the appropriate route for them anymore.58 T.J. was a seventeen-year-old, and despite the law being passed almost three years prior to his offense, he still was subject to adult penalties.59 The common law methods of interpreting the statutory ambiguity led the Supreme Court of Missouri to rule against T.J., but his life will forever be different because of the legislature’s confusion. Having appropriation contingencies within legislation seems to defeat the purpose of passing the law in the first place. If the government recognizes that action is necessary and does not allocate the funds, it is not really acting at all.
FOOTNOTES
[1] State ex rel. T.J. v. Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d 353, 356 (Mo. 2021).
[2] Id.; see Lily Bohlke, 17-Year-Olds in MO Now Will Be Treated as Juveniles, Not Adults, Pub. News Serv. (July 12, 2021), https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2021-07-12/juvenile-justice/17-year-olds-in-mo-now-will-be-treated-as-juveniles-not-adults/a74975-1#:~:text=JEFFERSON%20CITY%2C%20Mo.,the%20age%20of%20criminal%20responsibility.
[3] Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d at 357.
[4] Id. at 354.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 359.
[9] Id. at 358–59.
[10] Id.
[11] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.021 (2000).
[12] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.021 (2008).
[13] Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d at 356.
[14] Annie E. Casey Foundation, What are Status Offenses and Why Do They Matter?, The Annie E. Casey Foundation (Apr. 6, 2019), https://www.aecf.org/blog/what-are-status-offenses-and-why-do-they-matter.
[15] Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d at 356.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.438 (2018).
[20] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.439 (2018).
[21] Bohlke, supra note 2.
[22] Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d at 356–57.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Linda Simmons, Missouri Lawmakers Allocate Money to End Delay of ‘Raise the Age’ Law for Juvenile Courts, KY3 (May 24, 2021) https://www.ky3.com/2021/05/24/missouri-lawmakers-allocate-money-to-end-delay-of-raise-the-age-law-for-juvenile-courts/.
[26] Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d at 357–59.
[27] 551 S.W.3d 468, 472 (Mo. Banc 2018).
[28] Id.
[29] D.E.G. v. Juvenile Officer of Jackson Cnty., 601 S.W.3d 212, 216 (Mo. banc 2020).
[30] Id.
[31] Id.
[32] R.M.A. ex rel. Appleberry v. Blue Springs R-IV Sch. Dist., 568 S.W.3d 420, 429 (Mo. banc 2019).
[33] State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500, 508 (Mo. banc 2011).
[34] State ex rel. T.J. v. Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d 353, 356 (Mo. 2021).
[35] Id. at 359.
[36] Id. at 356–57.
[37] Id. at 357–58.
[38] Id.
[39] Id.
[40] Id. at 359.
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Id. at 356–57.
[44] Id. at 357–58.
[45] Id. at 358.
[46] Id.
[47] Id.
[48] Id.
[49] Id. at 359.
[50] Id. at 356–57.
[51] Id. at 356.
[52] Ken LaMance & Jose Rivera, Juvenile vs. Adult Criminal System, Legal Match, https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/juvenile-vs-adult-criminal-system.html (last updated Jan. 15, 2020).
[53] Brittany L. Briggs, Children Are Our Future: Resurrecting Juvenile Rehabilitation Through “Raise the Age” Legislation in Missouri, 85 Mo. L. Rev. 191, 202 (2020).
[54] Id. at 204–05.
[55] Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.321 (2021).
[56] Findings: Why Should 17-Year-Olds Be In Juvenile Court?, Il. Dep’t of Hum. Serv. https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=64924 (last visited Jul. 24, 2022).
[57] Id.
[58] 632 S.W.3d 353 (Mo. 2021).
[59] Id. at 359.