# Edwards v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · February 14, 1979 · 591 P.2d 313

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550940

## Case

- **Full name:** Bruce Wayne EDWARDS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** February 14, 1979
- **Citations:** 591 P.2d 313; 1979 OK CR 18; 1979 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 192
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bussey
- **Judges:** Cornish, Bussey, Brett
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550940

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that juvenile statutes which discriminate based on gender are in violation of the equal protection clause; males between sixteen and eighteen years of age prosecuted as adults without benefit of a certification hearing are entitled to retroactive application of holding
- recognizing that “[t]he Juvenile Code is geared to the philosophy of protecting a child’s right to full physical, mental, and moral development”

## Opinion text

BUSSEY, Judge,
specially concurring:
There several cases pending before us challenging the convictions of males who were sixteen or seventeen years of age, and who were not certified to stand trial as adults — as was required for females — from 1941 to April 4, 1972. Rather than addressing these issues separately in each of the cases where they arise, I wish to express my views in this opinion.
It is argued that absent certification of a sixteen or seventeen year old male, the trial courts of this State were without jurisdiction to try said males; and reference has been made to the early case of Wilson v. State, 65 Okl.Cr. 10 , 82 P.2d 308 (1938). The holding in Wilson was overruled in Ex parte Lewis, 85 Okl.Cr. 322 , 188 P.2d 367 (1947), which was cited with approval in Johnson v. State, Okl.Cr., 321 P.2d 976 (1958). The Juvenile Courts did not have jurisdiction over males sixteen years of age and older between 1941 and April 4, 1972; however, the trial courts of the State of Oklahoma did have jurisdiction over them in criminal cases. This being true, certification to stand trial as an adult was neither authorized by statute nor required at the time of their convictions. See Schaffer v. Green, Okl.Cr., 496 P.2d 375 (1972), Freshour v. Turner, Okl.Cr., 496 P.2d 389 (1972), and Dean v. Crisp, Okl.Cr., 536 P.2d 961 (1975).
The retroactive application of Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir. 1972), in Radcliff v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 1093 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. den. 421 U.S. 939 , 95 S.Ct. 1667 , 44 L.Ed.2d 95 (1975), and in the more recent decision of Bromley v. Crisp, 561 F.2d 1351 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. den., 435 U.S. 908 , 98 S.Ct. 1458 , 55 L.Ed.2d 499 (1978), has created confusion in the trial courts of this jurisdiction. And while I am personally convinced of the correctness of the dissenting opinions of Judges Seth and Barrett (concurred in by Judge Hill) in Bromley, supra, and of the wisdom of the 7th Circuit decision of United States ex rel. Watson v. Housewright, 528 F.2d 259 (7th Cir. 1975) (participated in by the late Tom Clark, former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court), which reached a different conclusion on retroactivity involving an identical question, the necessity of protecting our citizens from the wholesale release of guilty and dangerous criminals compels me to conclude that evidentiary hearings on the issue of whether these convicted males would have been certified had certification hearings been held prior to their convictions must be held in the trial court wherein the conviction was sustained. In the instant case, although the trial court properly denied relief under Dean v. Crisp, supra, I reluctantly would remand this ease for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the appellant was of the age alleged at the time of the trial, and whether *324 or not he would have been certified to stand trial as an adult under the appropriate certification standards in force in Oklahoma at the time the trial occurred. See Freshour v. Turner, supra, and 10 O.S.1971, § 1112(b). 1
If in said hearing it be determined that the appellant would not have been certified under these standards, then the convictions in Case No. CRF-71-2890 and in Case No. CRF-72-500 must be vacated; and the court should then consider whether the judgment and sentence imposed in Case No. CRF-74-1220 should be modified. If, on the other hand, the court concludes that Edwards would have been certified, the convictions in Case No. CRF-71-2890 and Case No. CRF-72-500, and in Case No. CRF-74-1220 should not be disturbed. Although the burden is upon the State to establish that certification would have occurred, all evidence bearing on that issue may be considered — including the prior juvenile record of the defendant, the nature of the offenses committed, and his subsequent criminal misconduct occurring in close proximity in time. (See Garner v. Oklahoma, 430 F.Supp. 692 (W.D.Okl.1975), affirmed sub nom. Bromley v. Crisp, supra). Sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law should be made by the District Court, in order to avoid the necessity of further evidentiary hearings should the issue be again raised in a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding in federal court. In all cases where convictions are challenged on these grounds, they must be instituted by the petitioners in the counties where the convictions occurred, in proper post-conviction proceedings, and cannot be joined in a class action.
. Title 10 O.S.1971, § 1112(b) provides as follows:
“(b) If a child is charged with delinquency as a result of an offense which would be a crime if committed by an adult, the court, after full investigation and a preliminary hearing, may in its discretion continue the juvenile proceeding, or it may certify such child capable of knowing right from wrong, and to be held accountable for his acts, for proper criminal proceedings to any other division of the court which would have trial jurisdiction of such offense if committed by an adult.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550940. Public record. Not legal advice.