COMMONWEALTH vs. A JUVENILE.

WILKINS, J. On April 7, 1988, a judge sitting in the juvenile session of the Salem Division of the District Court Department [Note 1] dismissed charges of delinquency, concluding that, because the alleged offender had attained the age of eighteen, the juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction over the matter. The alleged offenses of motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation of a motor vehicle (G. L. c. 90, Section 24G [1988 ed.]), and endangering the lives or safety of the public by negligent operation of a motor vehicle (G. L. c. 90, Section 24 [1988 ed.]), occurred on December 23, 1986, when the juvenile

Page 32

was approximataely sixteen years and ten months old. The complaint was issued before the offender attained the age of seventeen, and he was arraigned after he had attained that age. The offender became eighteen years old in February, 1988.

The judge concluded that no statute gave the juvenile court jurisdiction over the juvenile offenses once the juvenile became eighteen years of age. In his memorandum of decision, the judge referred to G. L. c. 119, Section 72 (1988 ed.), set out in the margin, [Note 2] which authorizes jurisdiction over a juvenile who has attained the age of seventeen. The last sentence of Section 72 states, however, that "[n]othing herein shall . . . give any court in its juvenile session any power or authority over a child after he has attained his eighteenth birthday."

The Commonwealth appealed from the order dismissing the complaint, and we granted its application for direct appellate review.

Section 72 concerns the jurisdiction of a juvenile court over a juvenile who has committed an offense before his seventeenth birthday but attains the age of seventeen before the juvenile court proceedings are concluded. That section explicitly authorizes the juvenile court to conduct such a proceeding while the offender is seventeen years old.

In apparent (but only partial) response to a concern that this court expressed in D'Urbano v. Commonwealth,

Page 33

345 Mass. 466 (1963), [Note 3] the Legislature in 1964 (see St. 1964, c. 308, Section 4) inserted G. L. c. 119, Section 72A, to deal with an alleged juvenile offender who is not apprehended until after he attains his eighteenth birthday. [Note 4] Neither Section 72 nor Section 72A deals explicitly, however, with an alleged juvenile offender who is arraigned before he becomes eighteen, but attains that age before the juvenile proceeding is disposed of. In inserting Section 72A, the Legislature failed to address the problem, adverted to explicitly in our D'Urbano opinion, of a juvenile offender who is arraigned but not tried before he attains the age of eighteen.

In 1980, this court noted that "[a] Juvenile Court retains authority over a delinquent child until he reaches the age of eighteen." A Juvenile v. Commonwealth (No. 1), 380 Mass. 552, 562 n.12 (1980). [Note 5] In that case, we pointed out that it was appropriate to remand a case for further findings even after the child had become an adult and that to do so would not be "a reinstitution of juvenile proceedings out of time." Id. at 563. In Commonwealth v. A Juvenile,

Page 34

16 Mass. App. Ct. 251, 253 (1983), citing the D'Urbano case, the Appeals Court said that "[t]he last sentence of [Section 72] makes clear that it gives no power or authority to the Juvenile Court over persons who have attained their eighteenth birthdays." [Note 6] The thrust of these opinions, construing statutory provisions concerning the authority of juvenile courts over persons who have attained eighteen years of age, is that the juvenile court has no such authority in the absence of a specific statutory authorization.

The Commonwealth argues that Section 72 does authorize continuing authority over the defendant in this case. It urges that we take an overview of what the Legislature must have intended in enacting Section 72A and contends that this court in its 1980 opinion in A Juvenile v. Commonwealth (No. 1), supra, and the Appeals Court in its 1983 opinion in Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, supra, found continuing juvenile court authority in the face of seemingly contrary statutory language. Moreover, it is argued that, if the last sentence of Section 72 is to be read as denying a juvenile court authority over persons who have attained the age of eighteen, the provision in that last sentence declaring as unauthorized any commitment to the Department of Youth Services of a child who has attained his eighteenth birthday would have been unnecessary. We are not confident that the premise of this latter argument is correct. In any event, we reject the suggestion that such explicit language as appears at the end of Section 72 does not mean what it says.

The major weight of the Commonwealth's argument, sound in reason, is that, through a variety of circumstances not the fault of the Commonwealth, a juvenile case may not end before the alleged offender attains the age of eighteen and the law should not let such an offender go free. This

Page 35

court, however, identified that problem over twenty-five years ago, pointing to the explicit language of Section 72. D'Urbano v. Commonwealth, supra at 470. Section 72A addresses part of the problem (apprehension after age eighteen) but does not reach the case of an alleged juvenile offender who was arraigned before age eighteen where the case is not disposed of before the alleged offender attains that age. The instruction we gain from this statutory pattern is that, when a juvenile is arraigned before the age of eighteen, the juvenile court must dispose of the matter promptly. That instruction seems flawed, however, as to a child arraigned so close to his eighteenth birthday that the juvenile proceedings cannot be completed. The Legislature may wish to address this problem. In the case before us, the time available does not appear to have been prohibitively brief because the arraignment occurred almost a year before the offender attained the age of eighteen. [Note 7]

The language of Section 72, viewed in light of its judicial construction and the legislative response to this court's concern, bars us from undertaking some form of saving judicial reconstruction, especially when the language is so compelling on its face. Similarly, any suggestion that this record could be read to say that the offender was somehow "apprehended" after his eighteenth birthday, so that Section 72A vests authority in the juvenile court, lacks merit.

The order allowing the alleged offender's motion to dismiss the complaint is affirmed.

So ordered.