Bill would let juvenile court review serious felony allegations tied to minors even if suspects are identified after age 21

A bill to close a jurisdictional gap in juvenile prosecutions — Assembly Bill 351 — drew sharply divided testimony before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

The bill, presented by Brigid Duffy on behalf of the Nevada District Attorneys Association, would require a juvenile‑court hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a person committed a delinquent act that would be a category A or B felony when the act allegedly occurred while the person was a juvenile but identification or service of process occurred after the suspect had turned 21.

Sponsor explanation and examples

Brigid Duffy, assistant district attorney in Clark County’s juvenile division, and Chief Deputy Michael Watson described scenarios the bill is intended to address: a near‑sixteen‑year‑old who commits homicide and then leaves the jurisdiction and is not located until after age 21; a masked 14‑year‑old who commits a sexual assault and is unidentified until DNA later matches after the suspect turns 21; and a multi‑defendant kidnap‑and‑robbery in which one juvenile flees the country and returns at age 21.

Michael Watson framed the problem starkly: “As our law stands today, a juvenile can literally get away with murder in the state of Nevada,” he told the committee, arguing the bill would create a judicial review rather than an automatic transfer to adult court. The bill would first require a probable‑cause hearing in juvenile court and then allow the court to weigh statutory factors to determine whether the case should proceed in adult court.

Opposition and concerns

Representatives of the Clark County and Washoe County public defender offices opposed the bill. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office argued the 2009 statutory framework deliberately limited adult jurisdiction for acts committed while the child was under 16 and that the Nevada Supreme Court decision cited by the sponsors (Zalyaul, 2022) did not create the gap the bill purports to fix. Guerrero warned the bill could subject people to adult prosecution for actions committed at ages 13–15 when memories, witnesses and evidence have faded.

Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office also urged rejection, saying juvenile justice’s rehabilitative focus and differences in developmental maturity justify limits on prosecuting childhood conduct in the adult system years later.

Prosecutors and law enforcement support

Jennifer Noble, representing the Nevada District Attorneys Association, and Jason Walker of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office testified in support, saying serious violent offenses should not fall into a jurisdictional void. Duffy and Watson emphasized the bill would not automatically send cases to adult court; rather, juvenile courts would conduct the statutorily prescribed multi‑factor review before any transfer decision.

Clarifying details and scale

Prosecutors said such cases are uncommon but real: the presenting prosecutor estimated roughly half a dozen matters since 2010 requiring the kind of jurisdictional review the bill would provide. Witnesses pointed to statutory and case‑law changes since the 2009 law that, they said, have created new gaps to be addressed.

Outcome and next steps

The committee took testimony and closed the hearing on AB351 with no recorded committee vote during the session. Supporters urged the committee to preserve the judicial‑review framework; opponents urged protection for rehabilitative juvenile principles and cautioned against retroactive adult exposure for actions committed as children.

Ending

The bill remains pending. Sponsors said the juvenile court review would balance victims’ interests, public safety and the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile system.