Supreme Court

23-1028 - In re J.J.T.

In re J.J.T.

Case numbers: 23-1028
Legal category: Juvenile Justice
Subtype: Juvenile Court
Set for oral argument: December 3, 2024

Case Summary

The issue is whether the juvenile court erred in transferring a case to criminal district court where the defendant was a minor at the time of the murder but was charged after his 18th birthday.

After Gutierrez was murdered in October 2020, Deputy Crain learned that Gutierrez had phoned Tovar about a drug deal. Investigators interviewed J.J.T., a minor who was friends with Tovar and lived next door. J.J.T. denied any involvement. Later, Tovar was arrested and claimed that J.J.T. shot Gutierrez. In November 2021, one month before J.J.T.’s 18th birthday, Tovar asked for a proffer meeting. He provided the passcode for his phone; the phone’s contacts included J.J.T.’s number. Seven months later, Crain obtained records for J.J.T.’s phone that included data showing J.J.T. and Tovar were together the night of the murder. A month after that, J.J.T. admitted his involvement in the crime. J.J.T. was charged with murder in December 2022.

The juvenile court waived jurisdiction and transferred the case to criminal district court under Section 54.02(j)(4) of the Family Code. Subpart (A) permits transfer if “for a reason beyond the control of the state it was not practicable to proceed in juvenile court before the 18th birthday.” Subpart (B) permits transfer if “after due diligence . . . it was not practicable to proceed in juvenile court” because “the state did not have probable cause to proceed” before the 18th birthday. The juvenile court’s order did not specify whether it was based on (A) or (B).

A split panel of the court of appeals held that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to make the transfer and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The majority concluded that (B) is not implicated because the trial court did not make a due diligence finding and that the evidence is insufficient under (A) because the State had probable cause to proceed before J.J.T.’s 18th birthday.

In the Supreme Court, the State argues that the transfer was appropriate under (A); the court of appeals unduly focused on probable cause; and, even if probable cause existed, that does not mean it was “practicable” to proceed in juvenile court if, for example, the State could not reasonably expect to secure a conviction based on the evidence available before the juvenile’s 18th birthday.

The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review.

Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.