Does 53.03(c) prohibit us from requiring a stipulation to the evidence as a prerequisite to a deferred prosecution?
According to my reading of the statute "the probation officer or other designated officer of the court" may "advise" the child. I would argue that only after being admitted into the deferred prosecution program does a child have an "advisor" - thus any incriminating statement made to the advisor, as seems to be contemplated by 53.03(c) would be AFTER the child was placed on deferred prosecution, and therefore, the statement contemplated by that section could not be pre-requisite.
I am clear that admission to deferred prosecution must be BEFORE any ajudication takes place.
Look at 53.03(i)(3) "for an uncontested adjudication, before the child pleads to the petition or agrees to a stipulation of evidence" which refers to WHEN the court may defer prosecution.
Thanks for the input. Does anyone out there routinely require an admission before granting a deferred? It would sure seem to solve a lot of problems. It would shore up our case and also give the kid more incentive to succeed.
|Powered by Social Strata
© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.