Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Raise The Age topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs urges repeal of Phase 2 of Raise the Age, cites backlogs and 'aging out' cases
Summary
Kim McManus of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs told the House Judiciary Committee that the department opposes the April rollout of Phase 2 of Raise the Age and submitted a report citing prosecutor concerns about delayed transfers, DCF capacity and cases that have ‘aged out.’
Kim McManus, representing the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 22 that the department opposes the planned Phase 2 rollout of Raise the Age and asked the Legislature to repeal Phase 2 and focus on making Phase 1 work.
"We respectfully request that the legislature repeal Phase 2 and focus the state's time and resources on making Phase 1 work properly," McManus said, summarizing a set of comments and a report the department submitted to the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee.
McManus said prosecutors in the field reported several friction points if Phase 2 proceeds without additional resources: family court and DCF capacity limits, delays transferring felony cases from family court to criminal court, and a lack of a timely mechanism to hold repeat offenders accountable in family court unless they escalate to a specified set of serious offenses.
She shared practitioners’ observations collected through a departmental survey of prosecutors who focus on juvenile matters. One respondent reported that roughly 30% of that prosecutor’s delinquency caseload consisted of individuals who were 18 or older, and another county prosecutor reported a small but rising number of cases that “aged out” (a cited example list tracked 0 such cases in 2020, 2 in 2021, 4 in 2022 and 8 in 2023). McManus emphasized those figures were drawn from a limited set of respondents and are presented in the department’s submission for committee review.
McManus said the current statutory scheme requires that felonies outside the so‑called “big 11 plus 3” be filed in family court and that a transfer to criminal court requires the juvenile to appear; when a juvenile does not appear, transfer cannot proceed and delays can harm victims and the adjudicative process. She also noted the department heard prosecutorial frustration that some diversion or DCF referrals did not materialize in time, producing dismissals or unresolved cases.
The department’s report, McManus said, aggregates frank practitioner feedback and asks the Legislature to pause or repeal Phase 2 while investing in program capacity, court throughput and clear mechanisms to hold noncompliant young adults to account.
Committee members pressed McManus on survey scope and representativeness; she said seven prosecutors who handle primarily juvenile matters responded and that the department’s executive committee used that feedback and additional information when adopting an institutional position. Several legislators requested the department follow up with county‑level detail and broader counts to better understand geographic variation and frequency of the problems cited.
McManus provided the committee with the department's written submission and said staff would follow up with additional county‑level data as available.
