Summary of Argument

Washington Courts and the United States Supreme Court are clear that age is "far more than a chronological fact," and that adolescent development is relevant to legal interpretation. JD.B. v. North Carolina, 13 I S. Ct. 2394, 2403, 180 L. Ed. 2d 310 (2011). Washington Courts have also been clear that emerging research about adolescent decision-making should be taken into account even when applying laws that went into effect years ago. State v. O'Dell, 183 Wn.2d 680, 358 P.3d 359 (2015) (en banc). This jurisprudence highlights the importance of Washington's law establishing that a child between the ages of 10 and 12 is presumed to lack capacity to commit a crime, RCW 9A.04.050. It also clarifies the significant weight courts should give to the child's age and maturity when assessing capacity.

The trial court recognized Robert c.' s youth and immaturity; it erred when it failed to find that he lacked capacity. Moreover, Robert was an abused child reacting to a threatening adult. When assessing whether Robert understood the wrongfulness of his actions, the trial court failed to adequately take into account the research on childhood stress disorders and the evidence of Robert's PTSD. Because Robert lacked capacity, the court should have ended the inquiry and dismissed the case. If this Court holds otherwise, however, the case should be remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing because Robert's counsel was ineffective by failing to raise self-defense. Amici write separately to explain why the "reasonable child" standard must be applied when a child like Robert C. raises self-defense.

Summary of Argument

Legal jurisprudence in Washington State and the United States Supreme Court emphasizes the significance of age and adolescent development in legal decision-making. The presumption of incapacity for children aged 10 to 12 under RCW 9A.04.050 is supported by this jurisprudence, which also mandates that courts give substantial weight to a child's age and maturity when evaluating capacity.

In the case under consideration, the trial court acknowledged Robert C.'s youth and immaturity but erred in failing to conclude that he lacked capacity. Additionally, the court did not adequately consider evidence of Robert's PTSD and research on childhood stress disorders when evaluating his understanding of the wrongfulness of his actions. Due to Robert's lack of capacity, the case should have been dismissed.

However, if the appellate court disagrees, the case should be remanded for a new hearing because Robert's counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the defense of self-defense. A separate argumentation will address the necessity of applying the "reasonable child" standard when a child like Robert C. asserts self-defense.

Summary of Argument

Courts in Washington and the United States recognize that age is not just a number. The development of adolescents is important in how laws are applied. Courts have also stated that new research on how adolescents make decisions should be considered, even when laws were passed before the research was available.

These ideas are especially important in Washington, where children between the ages of 10 and 12 are presumed to be unable to commit crimes. They also clarify that courts should give a lot of weight to a child's age and maturity when deciding if they are capable of committing a crime.

In Robert C.'s trial, the court recognized that he was young and immature. However, it made a mistake when it decided that he was capable of committing a crime. Additionally, Robert was an abused child who was responding to an adult who was threatening him. When deciding whether Robert understood that what he was doing was wrong, the court did not adequately consider research on childhood stress disorders or evidence of Robert's PTSD.

Because Robert lacked the capacity to commit a crime, the court should have dismissed the case. However, if the court disagrees, the case should be sent back for a new hearing because Robert's lawyer did not effectively defend him by arguing self-defense.

When a child like Robert C. claims self-defense, it is important to consider the perspective of a "reasonable child." This means taking into account the child's age, maturity, and experiences to determine whether they believed they were in danger and whether their actions were reasonable under the circumstances.

Summary of Argument

When it comes to the law, age is not just a number. Courts understand that teenagers are still developing and may not make the same decisions as adults. That's why there's a law in Washington that says kids between 10 and 12 are assumed not to be able to commit a crime. It's important to consider a child's age and maturity when deciding if they're responsible for their actions.

In a recent case, the court recognized that Robert C. was young and immature. But they made a mistake by not saying that he couldn't be held responsible for his actions. Robert was also a victim of abuse and had PTSD, which is a mental health condition caused by trauma. The court didn't properly consider how these things affected his ability to understand right from wrong.

Because Robert didn't have the capacity to commit a crime, the case should have been dismissed. However, if the court doesn't agree, there should be a new hearing because Robert's lawyer didn't properly argue that he was acting in self-defense.

It's important to remember that when a child like Robert C. says they were acting in self-defense, we need to consider their age and development. We need to use the "reasonable child" standard, which means asking what a child of similar age and maturity would have done in the same situation.

Summary of Argument

When kids and teens are accused of crimes, courts have to decide if they are old enough to understand what they did wrong. Washington state has a rule that says kids between 10 and 12 are probably not old enough to understand. This means that if a kid in this age group does something wrong, they might not get in trouble.

The court looked at Robert C.'s case. He was a young kid who had been hurt by adults. The court knew that he was young and didn't understand things as well as older kids. But the court still said he was responsible for his actions.

Robert's lawyer thinks the court made a mistake. He says that Robert didn't understand that what he did was wrong because he was so young and had been through a lot of bad things. Robert's lawyer also says that Robert was scared and was trying to protect himself.

If the higher court agrees with Robert's lawyer, Robert won't get in trouble. But if the court doesn't agree, Robert will have to go back to court and try to prove that he was just protecting himself.

When kids like Robert say they were protecting themselves, the court has to look at how a kid their age would think and act in the same situation. This is because kids don't think like adults, and they might do things that adults wouldn't do to protect themselves.