State v. V. L.

“[T]he facts in a juvenile petition that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under ORS 419C.400(2) are the facts described in ORS 419C.255(1)(b), and that that set of facts is separate from, and does not include, facts about a youth’s age. Thus, ORS 419C.400(2) does not require facts about a youth’s age to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” See State v. Stamper, 197 Or App 413, 420, 106 P3d 172, rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005).

Youth appealed a judgment from the juvenile court that found him within the court’s jurisdiction for acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute unlawful delivery of a marijuana item, ORS 475C.345. Youth assigned error to the juvenile court’s determination that the state was not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Youth was under 18 years of age. On appeal, Youth argued that being “’under 18 years of age’ is a fact necessary to establish juvenile court jurisdiction, and, therefore, that fact must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a juvenile delinquency adjudication under ORS 419C.400(2).” On review, the court found that “the facts in a juvenile petition that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under ORS  419C.400(2) are the facts described in ORS 419C.255(1)(b), and that that set of facts is separate from, and does not include, facts about a youth’s age. Thus, ORS 419C.400(2) does not require facts about a youth’s age to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” See State v. Stamper, 197 Or App 413, 420, 106 P3d 172, rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005). Affirmed.