State v. S.-Q. K.

“Adjudicatory hearings”, according to the legislative history, were intended to be a “one shot” disposition, meaning that one “could not first give one disposition and later give another for the same act, stating a range of possible dispositions are available to the court upon the first try and the court just has to choose the right one so it “encompasses a juvenile court probation violation hearing”. DCBS v. Muliro, 359 Or 736 (2016).

Defendant appealed a juvenile courts determination that found him within the court’s delinquency jurisdiction. Defendant assigned error to the court allowing the proceeding despite his previous admittance in an earlier proceeding. On appeal, Defendant argued that ORS 419A.190 barred his delinquency proceeding because he had already been found in violation of his probation from the same incident. In response, the State argued that ORS 419A.190 does not involve “adjudicatory hearings” that barred subsequent proceedings and that it did not involve the “same conduct underlying the probation violation proceeding.” According to the legislative history, “Adjudicatory hearings” were a “one shot” disposition meaning that one “could not first give one disposition and later give another for the same act, stating a range of possible dispositions are available to the court upon the first try and the court just has to choose the right one so it “encompasses a juvenile court probation violation hearing”. DCBS v. Muliro, 359 Or 736 (2016). The Court held that the hearing was one that barred subsequent proceedings because it was the same conduct that “was the alleged basis for the probation violation” in the juvenile proceeding. Reversed and remanded.