## Facts

- Christina Choco was indicted in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for one count of first-degree burglary, one count of second-degree burglary, and four counts of willful failure to appear.
- The burglary charge stemmed from an incident on April 17, 1975.
- Before trial, Choco moved to have her case transferred to the Family Division for juvenile proceedings, claiming she was a “child” under D.C. Code § 16-2301(3) because the burglary was committed before she turned sixteen.
- The Criminal Division held an evidentiary hearing to determine Choco’s age at the time of the offense.
- Choco presented documents and testimony supporting a birthdate of May 4, 1960, which would have made her 15 on April 17, 1975.
- The government presented medical age-estimation testimony:
  - A forensic dentist testified that in May 1977 Choco appeared to be on the low end of an estimated age range of 17 to 20, which left open that she could have been as young as 14 at the time of the April 1975 offense.
  - A pediatric radiologist testified that in June 1977 Choco was over 18, which still left open that she could have been as young as 15 at the time of the April 1975 offense.
- After the hearing, the Criminal Division judge found that Choco was not a juvenile at the time of the offense and denied the motion to transfer.
- Choco filed an immediate appeal from the pretrial order denying juvenile treatment and transfer.

## Issues

1. Is a pretrial order denying a defendant’s motion to be treated as a juvenile and transferred from the Criminal Division to the Family Division immediately appealable?
2. Did the government carry its burden of proving Choco was not a “child” (i.e., was not under sixteen at the time of the alleged burglary) so that the case could remain in the Criminal Division?

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals held the denial of transfer to the Family Division was immediately appealable.
- The court held the government did not meet its burden to show Choco was over sixteen at the time of the April 1975 burglary.
- The court reversed the order denying transfer and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A pretrial order conclusively denying juvenile treatment and transfer may be immediately appealable when delayed review would effectively defeat the claimed right to juvenile adjudication.
- Under D.C. Code § 16-2302, a defendant’s claimed entitlement to juvenile proceedings can be lost once jeopardy attaches; this supports immediate appellate review of an order refusing transfer.
- Appealability is also supported by parity with D.C. Code § 16-2327, which expressly permits immediate appeal from a Family Division order transferring a juvenile to the Criminal Division; appellate review of the proper forum should not depend on the government’s initial charging choice.
- When a defendant makes a colorable showing that she qualifies as a “child” under D.C. Code § 16-2301(3), the government bears the burden of proving she does not qualify in order to keep the case in the Criminal Division.
- Age evidence that remains consistent with the possibility that the defendant was under sixteen at the time of the offense is insufficient to carry the government’s burden to defeat juvenile status.

## Conclusion

Choco held that a pretrial denial of transfer from the Criminal Division to the Family Division is immediately appealable because juvenile treatment can be irretrievably lost after jeopardy attaches, and the court reversed the denial where the government’s expert testimony did not rule out that Choco was under sixteen when the burglary occurred.


Choco v. United States, 383 A.2d 333 (1978)