83 Mass. App. Ct. 208
Facts:
The defendant, who was 12 years old at the time the crimes
were committed, tagged three homes. The defendant then admitted sufficient
facts to find him guilty of vandalism. The sentencing judge continued the case
without a finding and placed the defendant on probation for a year. The judge
ordered the defendant to pay restitution to the victims of his crimes in an
amount totaling $1,313.78. After a year had gone by, the defendant had still
not made any payments. The court extended the defendant’s probation to the age
of 16 in order to monitor his payments. The defendant appealed stating that the
court failed to consider his age and his ability to repay the victims.
Issue(s):
Did the trial court judge abuse his discretion in requiring
the defendant to repay the victims and extending probation? More specifically,
was the order counter to the philosophy of the juvenile justice system of
rehabilitation rather than punishment?
Holding/Rationale:
There was no abuse in discretion by the trial court for
ordering payment or for extending the probation to monitor payments. In order
to find that a judge committed an abuse of discretion, it must be shown that no
other reasonable judge in their position would have been able to reach the same
conclusion. Since the juvenile system focuses on rehabilitative measures and
not punishment, the judge’s ruling was appropriate. There was also no evidence
offered by the defendant to prove his inability to work for money.
Judgment:
Affirmed.
