Jonas Dixon, a desperate fifteen year old, shot and killed a drunken man who had come to the house to have sex with his mentally ill mother. Jonas’ father had abused both him and his mother, but died in a car accident while awaiting sentencing for the crime.

Jonas’ mother suffered from paranoid and psychotic delusions, including believing she was nursing babies, and that a family lived under her trailer. On bad days she walked around the house naked. Sometimes she played music at blasting levels and behaved aggressively. She sought treatment. Her insurance company wouldn’t pay for medicines that would help her. Desperate, Jonas’ grandmother called DCF to help. The worker claimed she couldn’t do anything after business hours and would deal with the family “next week”. The shooting occurred that night.

The dead man was one of a series of drunken men who came to the house for sex. Jonas could hear these encounters. Gradually he became more and more angry at men taking advantage of mom’s mental illness. This time he got a shotgun and ordered the man out of the house. A struggle for the gun ensued, Jonas afraid the man would get the gun and kill him, pulled the trigger and killed the man.

Jonas was charged with 2nd degree murder as an adult. His lawyer moved to have the case transferred to juvenile court. The District Court refused, reasoning that the crime was serious, the public had the right to know how it was handled, and that rehabilitative measures for Jonas couldn’t work before he was 18. The trial judge reasoned that Jonas knew that help was on the way and should have controlled his anger.

Jonas appealed. He argued that the purpose of the juvenile law is to protect children from the “taint of criminality” in appropriate case. Here, Jonas’ behavior was triggered by horrible events. Accordingly, the trial judge abused his discretion.

The Supreme Court agreed with Jonas. Chief Justice Reiber’s opinion said the trial judge had to take into account all the circumstances. The Chief emphasized that the shooting occurred when Jonas’ security in his own home was totally disrupted; and that he was subjected to events of the most humiliating and degrading nature for a child. Jonas’ ineffective pleas for help from adults in the positions of authority did nothing to help. Further, his self defense claim was plausible. All these factors could certainly overwhelm the judgment of a 15 year old.

The Supreme Court rarely finds trial judges abuse their discretion. Otherwise it would have to do all the work of the trial judges. Many deserving kids will be glad they did so in this case. State of Vermont v. Jonas Dixon 2008 VT 112.