K.R.L who was 8 years old and his friend were playing and told to leave by Catherine Alder in July of 1990 because she believed the area was dangerous. The children did not leave the area right away and were demanded to leave right than. Three days later during the daylight hours, K.R.L returned and broke into Alders home, her chopped her goldfish into several pieces and smeared it on the counter. He also plugged in her curling iron on her towel. Alder called the police and K.RL’s mother confronted him about the situation. He admitted to what he did was wrong. However, his mother believed that K.R.L did not really understand that his actions were wrong. Previous acts of delinquent behavior had supported his actions. He was found guilty.
ISSUE(S):
Did the trial court err when claiming that K.R.L had the capacity to commit a crime of residential burglary?
HOLDING(S):
Yes, during the time when K.R.L was 8 years old he was incapable of committing that offense. He did not have the capacity to form criminal intent.
REASONING:
…show more content…
His previous actions were examples of behavior that is not uncommon to many young children. He knew the acts were wrong, but it is not sure to whether he knew his actions were wrong during the crime. Beings K.R.L was only 8 years old, he was incapable of committing the crime. There was not enough evidence to support that K.R.L had the full capacity to understand his actions. Children under the age of eight are incapable of committing crime but this can be removed if a child understood their actions and knew it was