## Facts

- Two consolidated juvenile matters involved children under 12 adjudicated for acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult.
- Washington law presumes children ages 8–12 lack capacity to commit crime unless the State proves they understood the act and knew it was wrong.
- Q.D., age 11½, was adjudicated of first-degree criminal trespass based on events at a school.
- In a pretrial capacity hearing for Q.D., the State presented testimony from a caseworker and a detective indicating Q.D. was familiar with the justice system, “street wise,” and appeared to understand his rights.
- At Q.D.’s adjudicatory hearing, witnesses placed him on school grounds during the afternoon and in possession of the custodian’s keys, but proof that he entered the school building was limited and disputed.
- M.S., nearly 12, was adjudicated of indecent liberties against a younger child she was babysitting.
- Evidence regarding M.S. included conduct suggesting awareness of wrongdoing, including attempts to conceal what occurred.
- M.S. was assessed a statutory crime-victim financial penalty as part of disposition.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory presumption of incapacity for children ages 8–12 applies in juvenile adjudications for acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult.
2. What standard of proof the State must meet to rebut that presumption.
3. Whether the State sufficiently proved capacity as to M.S. and Q.D.
4. Whether evidence was sufficient to support Q.D.’s first-degree criminal trespass adjudication, including proof of “entry.”
5. Whether the statutory crime-victim financial penalty applies in juvenile dispositions.

## Decision

- Held that the statutory presumption of incapacity applies in juvenile adjudications.
- Held that the State must rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
- Affirmed M.S.’s adjudication, finding clear and convincing evidence of capacity and sufficient evidence of the underlying offense.
- Reversed Q.D.’s trespass adjudication because the State failed to present sufficient evidence of “entry” required for first-degree criminal trespass; the court did not decide whether capacity was proven as to Q.D.
- Held that the crime-victim financial penalty applies in juvenile court and upheld its imposition on M.S.

## Legal Principles

- In juvenile adjudications for acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult, children ages 8–12 are presumed incapable of committing crime unless the State proves the child had sufficient capacity to understand the act and know it was wrong.
- The State must rebut the statutory presumption of incapacity by clear and convincing evidence.
- Evidence of concealment may support a finding that a child knew the conduct was wrong and may satisfy the capacity requirement when proved clearly and convincingly.
- For first-degree criminal trespass, evidence must establish the required element of unlawful “entry”; presence on grounds and possession of related property, without adequate proof of entry into the building, is insufficient.
- Statutory crime-victim financial penalties may be imposed in juvenile dispositions when the statutory conditions are met.

## Conclusion

The court integrated the statutory infancy presumption into juvenile adjudications, required the State to prove capacity by clear and convincing evidence, affirmed the indecent-liberties adjudication and victim-penalty assessment for M.S., and reversed Q.D.’s first-degree trespass adjudication for insufficient proof of entry.


State v. Q.D., 685 P.2d 557 (Wash. 1984)