## Facts

- Benjamin Ashley Gammons, age 13, was arrested for alleged sexual abuse and sexual conduct with a minor.
- The State filed a delinquency petition in juvenile court based on the alleged acts.
- Arizona’s juvenile code defined a “delinquent act” as conduct that would be a criminal offense if committed by an adult.
- A.R.S. § 13-501 provided that a child under 14 is presumed incapable of committing a crime unless the State proves the child understood the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the act.
- Gammons denied the allegations and requested a capacity hearing under A.R.S. § 13-501.
- The State opposed the request, arguing § 13-501 applied only in adult criminal prosecutions, not juvenile delinquency matters.
- The juvenile court ruled that A.R.S. § 13-501 did not apply in delinquency proceedings, and denied a capacity hearing.
- Gammons sought special action relief in the Arizona Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether A.R.S. § 13-501’s presumption of incapacity for children under 14, and the requirement that the State prove understanding of wrongfulness, applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court accepted special action jurisdiction due to statewide importance for juvenile court operations.
- The court held that A.R.S. § 13-501 applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings.
- The juvenile court erred by refusing to apply § 13-501 and denying a capacity determination.
- The matter was remanded for proceedings consistent with the holding, including a capacity determination under § 13-501.

## Legal Principles

- A.R.S. § 13-501 codifies an infancy-based presumption that children under 14 lack criminal capacity unless the State proves the child understood the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the act.
- When delinquency is defined by reference to conduct that would be a criminal offense if committed by an adult, substantive limits on criminal responsibility in the criminal code apply in delinquency proceedings unless clearly displaced.
- The capacity-to-understand-wrongfulness requirement is a substantive condition on criminal responsibility, not merely a procedural rule limited to adult prosecutions.
- Denying § 13-501 protections in juvenile court would produce inconsistent results for the same conduct and conflict with protective purposes reflected in the infancy presumption.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court required juvenile courts to apply A.R.S. § 13-501 in delinquency cases involving children under 14, entitling such juveniles to a capacity determination on whether they understood the wrongfulness of their conduct at the time of the alleged act.


Gammons v. Berlat, 696 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1985)