The following is the floor report delivered by Representative Ian Goodnow on H.642, which I sponsored and was voted out of my committee on a unanimous vote.

Before the chamber is House Judiciary Committee’s strike-all amendment to H.642, entitled “An act relating to youthful offender proceedings.” Madame Speaker, this bill proposes to make changes to two existing statutes related to the youthful offender laws in Vermont to both improve how revocation of the youthful offender status occurs and allow for more victim input in the process. 

By way of background, the Youthful Offender system allows the transfer of jurisdiction from the Criminal Division to the Family Division for cases involving youth aged 14 to 21 for certain alleged criminal offenses. This transfer of jurisdiction provides for a confidential process in the family court which is premised on the science related to adolescent brain development and data. The data tells us that when a youth’s case is prosecuted in the Criminal Division rather than in the family division, the outcomes as measured by recidivism are not good. H.642 deals primarily with the procedures related to what happens when an individual on youthful offender status  violates juvenile probation.  Specifically, what happens when there is a motion to revoke youthful offender status and send the youth to criminal court due to a probation violation. 

Moving on to the bill itself, Madame Speaker, Section 1 can be found on page ___ in today’s calendar. Section 1 proposes changes to 33 V.S.A. § 5285, and is related to  modifications or revocations of a youth’s juvenile probation. 

The first change to this section is to add a new subsection a(2) to 33 V.S.A. § 5285, which extends the jurisdiction of the family division beyond the youth’s 22nd birthday if there is a pending motion to revoke the youthful offender status. This extended jurisdiction would last either until the youth’s probation is revoked, or the youth is discharged from probation. This new provision addresses a serious issue that currently exists where youths have “timed out” of their juvenile probation because the youth turns 22 while there is a pending motion for revocation or modification. This change will allow for the youth to remain within the Family Court’s jurisdiction to either complete probation, or have their Youthful Offender status revoked and be transferred to criminal court or to the Department of Corrections’ custody..

Madame Speaker the second change in section one can be found on page ___ of todays calendar. Here we are still operating in 33 V.S.A. § 5285 related to motions for revocation of a youthful offender status. These proposed changes relate to how the court determines what to do once it’s ruled that there has been a violation of probation. The Court has multiple options as to what can happen once its made that ruling: it can continue the youth on probation with any modifications it feels are necessary, it can revoke the youth’s probation and transfer them to criminal court for sentencing, or it can revoke the probation and transfer the youth into the custody of DOC. 

H.642 proposes to provide a number of factors for the court to consider when deciding which of those outcomes to order. These can be found in the new proposed (c)(2) in 33 V.S.A. § 5285. The three factors proposed are 1) if public safety will be protected if the youth continues on probation 2) if the youth continues to be amenable to treatment as a youthful offender and 3) if there continues to be sufficient services to meet the youth’s treatment and rehabilitation needs. 

Further, H.642 clarifies that if a youth fails to appear at the probation revocation hearing, if good cause is not shown for why the youth failed to appear, the court may order an officer to pick up the youth and bring them to court. 

Moving on to Section 2 Madame speaker, H.642 proposes to make multiple changes to sections of 33 V.S.A. § 5288 relating to rights of victims in youthful offender proceedings. These changes can be found on page ___ of today’s calendar.  The primary change can be found in 33 V.S.A. § 5288 (a)(2), H.642 proposes to add language to allow victims to be present at the preliminary hearing to determine whether a youth should be considered for youthful offender status and, critically, to allow the victim to testify as to whether they believe youthful offender status to be appropriate for the youth. The further changes in 5288 align the language for court procedure to make clear the victim’s rights as it relates to youthful offender status. These changes are important, Madame Speaker, as a victim’s experience and ultimately the outcome of their case will be dramatically different depending on whether the youth is transferred to the youthful offender system or remains in the criminal court, and thus the victim’s voice should be heard and considered when the court makes that determination. 

The Youthful Offender System is an important tool in Vermont’s criminal justice system for young vermonters. H.642 will help to strengthen that system. 

The bill was reported favorably out of House Judiciary on a vote of 10-0-1 and the committee respectfully asks the House to join us in supporting its passage.