## Facts

- On March 24, 1998, Andrew Douglas Golden (age 11) and another juvenile opened fire at Westside Elementary School in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
- The shooting killed one teacher and four students and wounded one teacher and nine students.
- A juvenile delinquency petition charged Golden with five counts of capital murder and ten counts of first-degree battery.
- At a probable cause hearing, defense counsel stated he would raise incompetency to proceed and an insanity defense.
- The juvenile court ruled Golden could not litigate competency or assert insanity before adjudication, reasoning that mental health issues could be considered at disposition when determining placement.
- Golden proceeded to adjudication to preserve the issues for appeal.
- The court adjudicated Golden delinquent on all counts and committed him for an indeterminate period to the Division of Youth Services, with limited additional detention conditions if released before age 21.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires a competency determination before a juvenile may be adjudicated delinquent.
2. Whether due process or equal protection requires allowing a juvenile to assert an insanity defense in delinquency proceedings when state law does not authorize it.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the juvenile court on competency, holding that due process requires a pre-adjudication determination of a juvenile’s competency to proceed.
- The court affirmed on insanity, holding that neither due process nor equal protection gives juveniles a right to assert an insanity defense absent statutory authorization.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with requiring a competency determination before adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- Due process in juvenile delinquency proceedings requires “essential” fairness protections, including procedures necessary for meaningful assistance of counsel.
- A juvenile has a due process right not to be adjudicated delinquent while incompetent; competency must be addressed before adjudication because it concerns present ability to understand proceedings and assist counsel.
- The insanity defense is a substantive defense tied to the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense; its availability may be limited by legislative choice.
- There is no freestanding constitutional right (due process or equal protection) to an insanity defense in juvenile delinquency proceedings when the legislature has not provided one.

## Conclusion

The court required juvenile courts to determine a juvenile’s competency to proceed before adjudication as a matter of due process, but it declined to constitutionalize an insanity defense for juveniles, leaving that defense to statutory authorization.


Golden v. State, 21 S.W.3d 801 (Ark. 2000)