In re B.W.
Texas Supreme Court
313 S.W.3d 818 (2010)
- Written by Emily Laird, JD
Facts
B.W. (defendant) had a long history as a victim of sexual and physical abuse. B.W. had trouble at school and had run away from foster and group homes. At 13 years old, B.W. had already lived with her 32-year-old boyfriend for a year and a half and was having sex with him. B.W. was arrested after she solicited an undercover police officer. B.W. was charged with prostitution in criminal court. When officials discovered her age, the state (plaintiff) refiled the case in the juvenile court system. In juvenile court, B.W. pleaded that she had solicited sexual contact for a fee. The trial court adjudicated B.W. delinquent for engaging in the act of prostitution. The state trial court placed B.W. on probation and then ordered rehabilitation, counseling, and treatment. B.W. appealed the state trial court’s decision. The state appellate court affirmed the lower court. B.W. appealed to the state supreme court, claiming that she should not have been charged with prosecution because, as a child, she was legally incapable of consenting to sex. The state argued that the delinquency charge was appropriate because the state legislature had enacted laws allowing a juvenile to be adjudicated as a delinquent for soliciting sex. The state also argued that the process of adjudicating B.W. as a delinquent in the juvenile court system provided a valuable means of providing B.W. with necessary treatment, counseling, and rehabilitation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Neill, J.)
Dissent (Wainwright, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.