The Juvenile Case Of Ricky Smith

The use of juvenile records in adult criminal cases has been an ongoing, contested debate for many years. The effects of using one’s juvenile record in criminal court could be very damning. This week’s case summary is in regard to this very issue. In People v. Smith (1991), the defendant in this case, Ricky Smith stated that he was wrongly sentenced to the maximum length of 180 months under a statute which utilized his juvenile record to deem that he was a habitual offender. A closer examination follows.

The juvenile case of Ricky Smith was brought to the attention of the Michigan Juvenile Court as he had been initially referred for truancy. However, his probation had been extended due to Mr. Smith being found driving a stolen vehicle. According to People v. Smith (1991), Mr. Smith was referred to the juvenile court again for riding a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol and for stealing candy bars. The juvenile court, again, chose to extend Mr. Smith’s probation, even though he had clearly demonstrated non-compliance with the rules of his probation by continuing to accrue delinquent charges. An additional report was filed with the court alleging that Mr. Smith had violated the terms of his probation due to a curfew infraction and threatened an officer. It appears that the Assistant District Attorney in the case attempted to have Mr. Smith’s case transferred to adult criminal court after he had been charged with stealing a woman’s purse. However, the court denied the request to do so. After the denial, Mr. Smith was sentenced to a boy’s reform school. He absconded from the facility and was listed as a runaway until he was found later, as an adult, with pending adult charges.

In People v. Smith (1991), the legal conundru...

... middle of paper ...

...e records. In the People v. Smith (1991), the ruling prohibited the automatic expunction of any life offense, criminal traffic violation or adjudicated reportable offenses. The expungement of a record would not inherently make any case data go away. Therefore, a paper trail of previously related charges could be found and provided as evidence in Circuit Court proceedings.

Although there will continue to be an issue revolving around Juvenile Court records, the Michigan Supreme Court, I believe, ruled in the right direction regarding Mr. Smith. The evidence clearly demonstrates that he was a habitual offender, which demonstrated a consistent lack of remorse for his actions and those in authority over him. Therefore, Mr. Smith was not granted a lenient sentence in his breaking and entering charge. He was sentenced to serve six to thirty years as a habitual offender.