Abstract
This case established the burden of proof for juvenile cases, with the Supreme Court holding that when a juvenile is charged with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence.
Abstract
This case established the burden of proof for juvenile cases, with the Supreme Court holding that when a juvenile is charged with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence.
Summary
This case established the standard of proof required for juvenile delinquency proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that when a juvenile is accused of an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult, the prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the lower standard of proof, a preponderance of the evidence, previously used in juvenile cases.
Abstract
This case established the burden of proof for juvenile cases, with the Supreme Court holding that when a juvenile is charged with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence.
Summary
This case established the burden of proof required in juvenile court proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that when a juvenile is accused of an offense that would be a crime if committed by an adult, the prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard of proof is the same as that required in adult criminal trials. Prior to this case, a lower standard of proof, known as a preponderance of the evidence, was often used in juvenile cases.
Abstract
This case established the burden of proof for juvenile cases, with the Supreme Court holding that when a juvenile is charged with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence.
Summary
This legal case set the standard for proving guilt in cases involving young people. The Supreme Court ruled that if a teenager is accused of doing something that would be a crime if done by an adult, every part of the crime must be proven without any reasonable doubt. This means that the evidence must be so strong that there's no chance the teenager is innocent. Previously, a lower standard of proof, called a "preponderance of the evidence," was used, meaning the evidence just had to be more likely than not.
Abstract
This case established the burden of proof for juvenile cases, with the Supreme Court holding that when a juvenile is charged with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence.
Summary
This court case was about how much proof is needed to convict a young person of a crime. The Supreme Court said that if a young person is accused of doing something that would be a crime if an adult did it, the court needs to be absolutely sure they did it. They have to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt. They can't just have more evidence that the young person did it than evidence that they didn't.