Wis. Stat. § 938.12
Wis. Stat. § 938.12
The above annotations cite to s. 48.12, the predecessor statute to s. 938.12.
The state may not delay in charging a child in order to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction. State v. Becker, 74 Wis. 2d 675, 247 N.W.2d 495 (1976). Notwithstanding s. 48.13(12), 1979 Stats., the court had jurisdiction under s. 48.12(1), 1979 Stats., over a child who committed a delinquent act before his 12th birthday but was charged after his 12th birthday. In Matter of D.V., 100 Wis. 2d 363, 302 N.W.2d 64 (Ct. App. 1981). Under the facts of the case, the court retained jurisdiction to determine waiver although the juvenile turned 18 after the proceedings were commenced. In Interest of TDP, 109 Wis. 2d 495, 326 N.W.2d 741 (1982). A contempt of court allegation did not support a determination of delinquency. In Interest of V.G., 111 Wis. 2d 647, 331 N.W.2d 632 (Ct. App. 1983). A prior adult proceeding that litigated the question of the respondent's age collaterally estopped the state from relitigating the same question in juvenile court, and the juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction of the case. In Interest of H.N.T., 125 Wis. 2d 242, 371 N.W.2d 395 (Ct. App. 1985). Juvenile court proceedings are commenced under sub. (2) upon filing the petition. The child need not appear in juvenile court before reaching age 18 for the court to retain jurisdiction. In Interest of D.W.B., 158 Wis. 2d 398, 462 N.W.2d 520 (1990). When a juvenile turns 18 during the pendency of proceedings, the filing of a waiver petition prior to a plea hearing is not required for waiver of jurisdiction under sub. (2). In Interest of K.A.P., 159 Wis. 2d 384, 464 N.W.2d 106 (Ct. App. 1990). The age of the defendant at the time of charging determines juvenile court jurisdiction regardless of the defendant's age at the time of the offense. State v. Annola, 168 Wis. 2d 453, 484 N.W.2d 138 (1992). Wisconsin courts have jurisdiction over resident juveniles alleged to be delinquent because they violated another state's criminal laws. 70 Atty. Gen. 143. Greater Jurisdiction Discretion. Schneider & Harrison. Wis. Law. Apr. 1996. A defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing as a matter of right whenever there is a mere allegation that the state intentionally "manipulated the system" to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction. The standard for determining when a hearing should be granted is articulated. State v. Velez, 224 Wis. 2d 1, 589 N.W.2d 9 (1999), 96-2430. The state does not have jurisdiction over delinquent acts committed by Menominee tribal members within reservation boundaries, but does have jurisdiction over acts committed off the reservation. State v. Elmer J.K., 224 Wis. 2d 372, 591 N.W.2d 176 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2067. After the filing of a delinquency petition, a juvenile court may waive its jurisdiction over juveniles of certain ages who have been charged with certain crimes. The juvenile's age on the date of the alleged offense mandates whether the juvenile court has competency to consider waiver. An order is not valid when issued by a court that lacks competency due to the failure to follow fundamental statutory requirements. In this case, where the juvenile was below the age for waiver, the waiver order by the juvenile court was invalid and the adult court never obtained jurisdiction. State v. Phillips, 2014 WI App 3, 352 Wis. 2d 493, 842 N.W.2d 504, 12-2103. Age limits on criminal, juvenile delinquency, and juvenile in need of protection or services (JIPS) matters both define and restrict how a circuit court may address the specific case before the court, and not whether a circuit court can hear criminal, juvenile delinquency, or JIPS matters generally. Therefore, age limits are an issue of statutory competency, rather than subject matter jurisdiction. Unlike challenges to subject matter jurisdiction, challenges to statutory competency may be forfeited or waived. State v. Sanders, 2018 WI 51, 381 Wis. 2d 522, 912 N.W.2d 16, 15-2328. A defendant's age at the time he or she is charged, not the defendant's age at the time he or she commits the underlying conduct, determines whether the circuit court has statutory competency to hear the case as a criminal, juvenile delinquency, or juvenile in need of protection or services matter. Consequently, the circuit court in this case possessed statutory competency to hear the defendant's case as a criminal matter because the defendant was an adult at the time he was charged for conduct he committed before his tenth birthday. State v. Sanders, 2018 WI 51, 381 Wis. 2d 522, 912 N.W.2d 16, 15-2328.