(a) Upon a motion by the attorney general pursuant to § 14-1-7, the court shall conduct a hearing at which it shall be the duty of the attorney
general to produce evidence to enable the court to determine:
(1) That probable cause exists to believe that the offense charged has been committed
and that the child charged has committed it, unless the proof has been elicited at
a prior hearing on detention of the juvenile and the findings have been made by the
same justice of the family court who is conducting the waiver proceeding; and
(2) That the child’s past history of offenses, history of treatment, or the heinous or
premeditated nature of the offense is such that the court finds that the interests
of society or the protection of the public necessitate the waiver of jurisdiction
of the court over the child.
(b) If the court finds that subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section have been proven
by a preponderance of evidence, it may waive jurisdiction over the child and refer
the child to the appropriate adult court to be tried for the offense as an adult.
(c) A waiver of jurisdiction over a child pursuant to this section shall constitute a
waiver of jurisdiction over that child for the offense upon which the motion is based
as well as for all pending and subsequent offenses of whatever nature, and the child
shall be referred to the court which would have had jurisdiction if the offense had
been committed by an adult. In the event that the child is acquitted of the offense
for which the waiver has been sought, the waiver shall be vacated.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases, 1977–2019 · leading case:
State v. Day, 911 A.2d 1042 (R.I. 2006).
State v. Day, 911 A.2d 1042 (R.I. 2006).
· cites it 18× “3 The defendant contended that § 14-1-7.1 prohibited the state from charging him with crimes different from those for which the Family Court found probable cause and that served as the basis for the waiver.”
In Re Harrison, 992 A.2d 990 (R.I. 2010).
· cites it 8× “Section 14-1-7.1. In 1990, as a middle ground between these polar opposites, the General Assembly also provided for certification, the process selected for Harrison.”
State v. Greenberg, 951 A.2d 481 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 4× “the child is accused of an offense that is punishable by life imprisonment if committed by an adult, or is sixteen years of age or older and is charged with an offense that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult, §§ 14-l-7(a) and 14 — 1—7(b) provide that the child…”
State v. Berard, 401 A.2d 448 (R.I. 1979).
· cites it 9× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §14-1-7.1 excludes from the jurisdiction of the Family Court a juvenile defendant over the age of 16 who is charged with conduct amounting to one or more felonies when he has committed two prior offenses which would have constituted felonies had he been…”
State v. Grabowski, 644 A.2d 1282 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 4× “*1287 Under § 14-1-7.1, the hearing in Family Court did not subject defendant to the risk of punishment, but served to determine whether “probable cause exist[ed] to believe that the offense charged ha[d] been committed and that the * * * [defendant] ha[d] committed it.”
State v. Quandell Husband, 162 A.3d 646 (R.I. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Section 14-1-7.1 expresses that, before waiving jurisdiction over a juvenile, the Family Court must find probable cause to believe that a juvenile has committed the offense charged and then must examine the facts presented to determine if “the interests of society or the…”
State v. Mastracchio, 546 A.2d 165 (R.I. 1988).
· cites it 3× “1 mandates transfer of “[a] child sixteen (16) years of age or older who has been found delinquent for having committed two (2) offenses after the age of sixteen (16) which would render said child subject to an indictment if he were an adult * * * ” out of Family Court for…”
State v. Kryla, 742 A.2d 1178 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 2× “The Family Court waived jurisdiction under G.L.1956 § 14-1-7.1, and the Superior Court tried him as an adult.”
State v. Girouard, 561 A.2d 882 (R.I. 1989).
“1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 14-1-7.1, as amended by P.L.1984, ch. 246, § 1.”
In Re Robert, 406 A.2d 266 (R.I. 1979).
· cites it 3× “Section 14-1-7 gives a Family Court justice the discretion to waive jurisdiction, after a “full investigation,” over any juvenile 16 years of age or older where the juvenile misconduct would be an indictable offense if performed by an adult.”
In Re John D., 479 A.2d 1173 (R.I. 1984).
“Pursuant to the provisions of § 14-1-7.1, a juvenile, sixteen years old or older, who has been found delinquent on two occasions after the age of sixteen for acts that if committed by an adult would constitute a felony, may on the third occasion be subject to waiver from the…”
State v. Leach, 425 So. 2d 1232 (La. 1983).
“Y. Penal Law §§ 10.00 (18) 30.00(2) (McKinney Supp.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 14-1-7.1(a) — 1 case
State v. Grabowski, 644 A.2d 1282 (R.I. 1994).
“*1287 Under § 14-1-7.1, the hearing in Family Court did not subject defendant to the risk of punishment, but served to determine whether “probable cause exist[ed] to believe that the offense charged ha[d] been committed and that the * * * [defendant] ha[d] committed it.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 14-1-7.1(b) — 1 case
State v. Day, 911 A.2d 1042 (R.I. 2006).
“3 The defendant contended that § 14-1-7.1 prohibited the state from charging him with crimes different from those for which the Family Court found probable cause and that served as the basis for the waiver.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 14-1-7.1(c) — 2 cases
State v. Day, 911 A.2d 1042 (R.I. 2006).
“3 The defendant contended that § 14-1-7.1 prohibited the state from charging him with crimes different from those for which the Family Court found probable cause and that served as the basis for the waiver.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.