Metro

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has asked a Somerset County judge to review a decision he made last year to reject a juvenile’s claim that his case should have been dismissed because he did not receive a speedy trial and therefore lost the rehabilitative benefits of the juvenile court.

The unusual decision was issued in an opinion late last week by Judge Judith F. Olson, who explained the Somerset County resident was fined $30,000 and lost his hunting and trapping privileges for 50 years for acts he committed when he was under 18 years of age.

But, as the judge noted, the defendant was not tried and sentenced by Juvenile Court Judge Scott P. Bittner until he was just one month shy of his 21st birthday — a point in time when the juvenile court loses its supervision over a case.

The youngster in question was involved with an adult and another juvenile in poaching deer near Confluence, just off State Route 281.

The trio went out on several occasions and shot as many as 31 deer.

Their sport came to an end in March 2022 when a farmer followed them and obtained the license number of the vehicle they were in.

All three were eventually fined and had their hunting and trapping privileges suspended for many years.

The young man who appealed his case to the Superior Court was charged with violations of the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code that included: 15 counts of killing big game; eight counts of using lights while hunting; and five counts of unlawful taking or possession of game or wildlife.

Attorney Grant J. Shonesky of Somerset, representing the youth, appealed the sentence because of the length of time it took to bring the case to trial.

In the adult criminal court, a suspect must be tried within a year of the charges being filed, but the time clock is put on hold if a delay occurs due to the defense, such as the filing of pretrial motions.

The youth in the poaching case did not receive a trial for more than 29 months.

The Superior Court panel that included Olson and Judges Megan Sullivan and Kate Ford Elliott emphasized the first delay of the case was caused because of the “extensive discovery” involved in preparing for trial, and the suspect did not object.

But subsequent delays in bringing the case to trial before the juvenile court went unexplained.

During that time, the juvenile and his attorney asked that the case be dismissed due to the violation of Pennsylvania’s speedy trial law.

The defense argued the excessive delays in hearing the case violated the youth’s Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial.

Specifically, the defense contended the juvenile was prejudiced by not being able to receive the rehabilitative benefits provided by the juvenile system.

The judge concluded that Pennsylvania law does not consider such a loss ” the type of prejudice that makes proceedings unfair to a juvenile.”

The Superior Court panel disagreed with that assessment.

The appeals court opinion stated, “the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile act is attained through accountability and the development of personal qualities that will enable the juvenile offender to become a responsible and productive member of the community.”

It continued, the delay in the disposition of a juvenile case “can potentially have a negative impact upon the juvenile’s rehabilitation.

“It lessens the amount of time the juvenile is subject to programs of supervision, care and rehabilitation ordered by the juvenile court and potentially limits the type of treatment that is even available for the juvenile,” the appeals court stated.

The Superior Court opinion concluded that the time constraints placed on the juvenile system — for juveniles — is an additional interest “which the speedy trial right was designed to protect.”

The appeals court vacated the judge’s sentence and asked the county judge to reconsider the defense arguments that the youth’s speedy trial rights were violated.

The juvenile court still has discretion over the fines and hunting-trapping ban it imposed, the Superior Court opinion pointed out.