19 Sep 25
California’s justice system faces a difficult question: At what age should a minor be tried as an adult? The consequences of this choice are significant, and the results could severely alter a young person’s future with more severe punishment and long-term effects. Although most juvenile cases remain in juvenile court, certain serious offenses, like murder, aggravated robbery, or violent sexual assault, can lead to minors being tried in adult court under specific circumstances.
The crime’s severity, the minor’s age, and the criminal record are critical factors in this process. Understanding the circumstances and reasons why minors can be charged as adults in California is crucial. The stakes are high, and the results can be life-changing. Want to learn more about the legal and factual conditions under which minors are tried as adults in California? The following information details how a minor can be tried as an adult.
How Proposition 57 Rewrote the Rules
Before Proposition 57, prosecutors could directly file certain grave cases in adult court without judicial oversight. This was referred to as the direct file and was applied in various serious felonies, giving the district attorney significant control over a juvenile’s future. Critics claimed that this system was unjust because it bypassed the protections and rehabilitative orientation of the juvenile justice system.
A minor could be prosecuted as an adult with no judicial control over their fate based on their background and potential for reform. This often resulted in stiffer punishment and a permanent criminal record, making it difficult to secure jobs or homes later in life.
The passage of Proposition 57 in 2016, championed by then-Governor Jerry Brown, took away the direct file authority of prosecutors. It required that in any juvenile case, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offense, a juvenile court judge should decide whether the minor is fit to be tried in the adult court.
This determination is reached at a special hearing, where the judge will weigh factors like the age of the minor, their criminal record, and the gravity of the offense. This change was a significant step towards giving precedence to rehabilitation and deciding whether to put a child on trial as an adult by a judicial review instead of a unilateral decision by a prosecutor.
Additional changes consolidated this shift. Even more restrictions were introduced by SB 1391, which was signed into law in 2018. It also revised the Welfare and Institutions Code to prohibit minors under 16 in adult court trials, essentially abolishing the transfer of 14- and 15-year-olds to adult court, regardless of the offense charged.
This act strengthens the state’s treatment of young offenders in a rehabilitative system. These changes have transformed how California approaches the problem, resulting in a more careful, measured way of deciding when a minor should be subjected to the adult criminal justice system.
What is a Juvenile Transfer Hearing?
The most critical event in the case of a minor is the juvenile transfer hearing or the fitness hearing. It is not a trial to establish whether a person is guilty or innocent. That comes later. Instead, the only issue to be determined in this hearing is whether the juvenile or the adult court system is the proper system to adjudicate the case. This is where a child’s future is at stake, because the decision can either send them to the rehabilitative arm of the juvenile system or the adult criminal court.
The Hearing Process and Key Players
In the hearing, a juvenile court judge is in charge and hears arguments on both sides. The prosecutor aims to prove that the minor is unsuitable for the juvenile justice system and should be tried as an adult. They work to present evidence of the crime’s severity, the criminal sophistication of the minor, and any previous unsuccessful rehabilitation efforts.
The defense attorney counters by emphasizing the minor’s age, immaturity, and potential for rehabilitation, presenting evidence of family background and positive steps toward reform. They are mainly interested in demonstrating that the minor can be rehabilitated through the juvenile system. The defense seeks to prove to the judge that the minor is a victim of their environment and that the juvenile system, with its focus on education and treatment, is the most likely to provide a positive outcome.
A probation officer is also a significant figure. They compile a probation report with vital details regarding the social background of the minor, family life, academic record, and past contact with law enforcement. This report plays a significant role in the judge’s judgment since it gives a detailed insight into the background of the minor and their chances of reform. The judge will consider this information and the arguments presented by the prosecution and the defense.
When Does a Judge Send a Minor to Adult Court?
One of the most critical and challenging decisions a judge can make is transferring a case involving a minor to the adult court. California law dictates that judges weigh five factors carefully to make this determination. These are the main provisions of the fitness hearing and indicate whether a minor can be treated within the juvenile system. It is important to understand these factors to understand how the future of a minor is determined.
The Level of Criminal Sophistication of the Minor
The level of criminal sophistication of the minor is a decisive and complex aspect that a judge should consider during a fitness hearing. This is not a test of the minor’s intelligence but a narrow test of forethought, deliberation, and cunning in perpetuating the alleged crime. The court is cautious in determining whether the crime was an act of impulse or a well-planned event.
The prosecution must present substantial evidence of premeditation and an organized plan to argue a transfer to adult court. This might involve a variety of planned actions, including:
- Planning the crime
- Obtaining a weapon beforehand
- Stalking a victim
- Planning an elaborate escape route to prevent being caught
For instance, a minor who breaks into a home haphazardly is seen as far less sophisticated than one who meticulously disables a complex security system, wears a disguise to conceal their identity, and has a pre-planned rendezvous point.
On the other hand, the defense plan emphasizes the absence of sophistication. Defense attorneys will argue that the crime was an impulsive, on-the-spot action, and in many cases brought about by outside forces. This could entail showing that the minor was under duress, influenced by peer pressure or someone older than them. The defense is trying to persuade the judge that the minor did not plan the act in a manner that an adult does, and the case should not be treated as a serious crime that needs to be dealt with in the adult justice system.
The Possibility of Rehabilitating the Minor Before Juvenile Jurisdiction Expires
Juvenile court jurisdiction generally ends at age 21, but for certain serious offenses, it can extend until age 25. This factor poses a fundamental question: Is there sufficient time to change the minor?
The prosecutor may state that due to the minor’s age (particularly when he/she is close to 18) and the nature of the crime, there is simply no time left in the juvenile system’s framework to provide the required treatment.
The defense will also provide a contrasting image, with testimony of therapists, social workers, and school counselors to emphasize the remorse of the minor and their desire to enter into educational and rehabilitation programs. The defense aims to demonstrate to the judge that the minor can be rehabilitated, although it may take a long-term and intensive process.
The Past History of Delinquency of the Minor
The history of delinquency is a significant factor in the judge’s decision to transfer the minor to an adult court. This assessment thoroughly examines the minor’s past interactions with the justice system. A lengthy and sustained history of previous offenses, particularly those that indicate an escalating progression in severity or a tendency toward increasing violence, can work significantly against the minor. The prosecution will use this history to show that the minor is not a first-time offender but a person with an established and habitual tendency towards criminal activities. They will claim that the further activities of the minor, despite all the previous interventions, indicate that the rehabilitation work of the juvenile system will be inefficient in the future as well.
In sharp contrast, the defense’s main aim is to soften the effects of this history. They can challenge the nature of their previous crimes, stating that they were small, one-time events, or the result of behavioral problems that can be fixed. They could argue that, for example, earlier misdemeanors were caused by a lack of maturity and not criminality.
The defense attorneys can also point out any positive behavioral periods or “lapses on the record,” during which the minor successfully stayed out of trouble. By highlighting efforts at reformation and self-enhancement, the defense will try to convince the judge that the minor can be reformed. The current crime, though grave, does not deny the minor the chance to reform in the juvenile justice system.
The Success of the Past Efforts to Rehabilitate the Minor
The judge will consider past interventions if a minor has a juvenile justice history.
For example, was the minor able to complete a prior term of probation or a court-ordered counseling program? The prosecution will highlight any failures, like a minor who repeatedly failed probation terms or dropped out of a therapy program, as a sign that the juvenile system has already failed to rehabilitate the minor. The defense may, however, say that the previous interventions were not thorough enough or that the situation of the minor has now changed, and they are more open to rehabilitation.
The Circumstances and Gravity of the Alleged Offense
The last factor is the crime itself. The judge takes into account the harshness of the alleged crime, and they pay particular attention to whether the crime was violent, whether a weapon was used, and whether injury or death was caused.
The prosecution will rely on this aspect to show how heinous the crime is, which is too serious to be tried by the juvenile court. On the other hand, the defense will show the situation from the minor’s perspective, showing that they were a minor participant, under duress, or that the event was an accident. This aspect is usually the most emotional part of the hearing, as it brings to the fore the crime details.
Who Is Entitled to a Transfer Hearing?
In California, a minor must satisfy two particular conditions to be eligible to be put to a transfer hearing: age and type of offense. Due to recent reforms, the regulations are a lot more stringent than they used to be.
Under California Senate Bill (SB) 1391, only minors 16 or 17 years old during their alleged crime can be subject to a transfer hearing. Minors aged 14 or 15 years can no longer be tried in adult court, no matter how serious the crime committed. This legislative reform was a significant shift from the past direct file laws that automatically allowed prosecutors to direct young offenders to adult court. An exception applies if the minor committed the offense at age 14 or 15 but was not apprehended until after turning 18.
Although a minor must be of a certain age to be transferred, there is only a particular set of serious felonies under Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 707(b) that can cause a transfer hearing to take place. This list includes crimes of extreme gravity, reflecting the idea that only the most severe offenses should be considered for adult prosecution. Examples of these crimes are:
- Murder
- Attempted murder
- Kidnapping for ransom
- Aggravated mayhem
- Arson causing great bodily injury
- Some violent sexual assault crimes
These grave charges are the basis for the prosecution’s request to transfer the case.
The Impact of Juvenile Justice and Being Tried as an Adult
The result of a transfer hearing can make a substantial difference in the life of a minor because the two judicial systems are based on two completely different philosophies with vastly different implications. The juvenile or adult court is a decision between a child-centered system aimed at the future potential change of a child and a system of adult responsibility.
Goal and Sentencing
The basic distinction is at the end of each system. The main aim in juvenile court is rehabilitation. The system is premised on the idea that children can be reformed. The hearings, the sentencing process and all the steps involved are meant to help address the underlying causes of the underage criminal behavior and to rehabilitate the minor so that they can be successfully integrated back into society.
On the other hand, the adult court system is based on punishment and retribution. The idea behind it is to make the person punishable for their deeds, to make society safe and to create a fear in the minds of others not to commit these crimes due to the harsh punishment.
This difference in philosophy is carried over to the sentencing model. A minor in the juvenile system receives an indeterminate sentence, meaning they remain under court supervision until a maximum age, usually 21, or up to 25 for certain serious offenses. They are not released on a set term but depend on their progress and successful rehabilitation. In adult court, a person may receive a determinate sentence (a fixed prison term) or, for grave crimes, an indeterminate sentence, like 25 years to life. A minor tried as an adult could even be sentenced to life without parole, a punishment that does not exist in the juvenile system, for the most heinous crimes.
Criminal Record and Prison
The other significant area of difference is the long-term impact of a criminal record.
The record of a minor within the juvenile system is confidential. It may often be sealed once the minor reaches adulthood, enabling them to lead their life without dealing with the stigma of a criminal record. This is a determining factor in securing future employment, housing, or education. In sharp contrast, a conviction in adult court leaves an individual with a permanent, publicly available criminal record, which can haunt the individual throughout their lifetime, with severe collateral consequences preventing them from restarting their life.
The incarceration location is very different. Youth remaining in the juvenile system are placed in a Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facility or a county-level camp. These facilities are aimed at minors and focus on education and rehabilitative activities that help deal with the problem’s roots. When tried as an adult, the person is sentenced to a California state prison, where they are placed in the general adult population. These facilities do not provide the rehabilitative specialty of the juvenile system and may expose young offenders to a more hostile and less supportive environment.
The decision at the transfer hearing determines the length of a sentence and the environment in which the minor will spend their time.
Find a Criminal Defense Lawyer Me
Understanding the intricate rules of when minors can be tried as adults is vital, and these decisions have life-altering impacts. From serious offenses to judicial discretion, understanding the factors in action enables families to protect their loved ones. At Leah Legal, we have a knowledgeable Van Nuys team to help you with competent representation and support throughout. We will fight to protect your child’s rights and achieve the most favorable result. Call us today at 818-484-1100 to arrange a consultation and begin protecting your future.
