Bill
HB 2636
Arizona HB 2636 creates a pathway for juveniles who were 13 or younger at the offense to be ruled not criminally responsible due to infancy, keeping them in juvenile court.
The material provided appears to contain two different bills that share the same bill number (HB 2636) but come from different jurisdictions and address unrelated subjects. Below are separate, concise summaries for each.
Status: Introduced Feb 11, 2025; Referred to Rules Committee
Primary sponsor(s): Rep. Alexander Kolodin; cosponsors: Rachel Keshel, Laurin Hendrix, Lisa Fink
Purpose and intent
- Establish a statutory procedure allowing juveniles who were age 13 or younger at the time of an offense to request a judicial finding that their infancy (lack of maturity) excuses adult criminal responsibility, and to clarify transfer/jurisdiction rules between juvenile and criminal courts.
Key provisions
- Amends ARS §8-327 (transfer hearing) to:
- Keep existing transfer-hearing framework (state may request transfer; court holds hearing before adjudication; judge uses preponderance standard to find probable cause and public-safety necessity).
- Add that, on a finding of “infancy” (see new §13-207), juvenile court jurisdiction is conferred for a period necessary for rehabilitation provided any juvenile disposition does not exceed the maximum adult criminal sentence under Title 13.
- Adds new §13-207 (Infancy; burden of proof):
- A person who committed an offense at age 13 or younger may request a judicial finding that infancy caused lack of maturity and excuses adult criminal responsibility.
- The requesting person must prove this by clear and convincing evidence.
- The infancy finding does not apply to offenses listed in §13-501(A) (serious enumerated offenses).
- If the court finds infancy, jurisdiction is in juvenile court (the person is not subject to adult criminal responsibility under this section).
- Amends §13-501 (charging juveniles as adults):
- Reiterates current statutory scheme for charging certain juveniles as adults (age thresholds 14–17 for specified felonies).
- Adds explicit bar: county attorney shall not bring an action under Title 13 or Title 8 against a juvenile who is seven years of age or younger at the time of the alleged offense.
- Retains chronic felony offender procedures, sentencing as adults if convicted under this section, and other existing definitions and jurisdiction notes.
Who is affected
- Juveniles (particularly those aged 13 or younger at time of offense), prosecutors, juvenile and superior courts, victims, and juvenile-court service providers. The change creates a potential pathway for very young offenders to remain in juvenile court rather than adult criminal court if they meet the clear-and-convincing standard.
Procedural/timeline aspects
- Introduced in Arizona House on Feb 11, 2025; currently referred to Rules Committee. If enacted, courts would apply the new infancy procedure and the clarified age bar (≤7) and juvenile-jurisdiction rules.
Potential implications (practical effects)
- Adds a formal legal test (clear and convincing) for excusing adult responsibility for young children (≤13).
- Limits adult prosecution of very young children (≤7 prohibited).
- Could shift some prosecutions back to juvenile court when infancy is proven, affecting sentencing and rehabilitation pathways.
Status: Introduced Feb 6, 2025; Readings and referral to Culture, Recreation & Tourism noted
Primary sponsor: Rep. Martin McLaughlin
Purpose and intent
- Permit public middle schools, junior high schools, and high schools to establish optional “junior color guard” programs to promote respect for and honor of military personnel and to present the colors at events.
Key provisions
- Adds two new sections to the Illinois School Code (proposed 105 ILCS 5/10-20.88 and 105 ILCS 5/34-18.88):
- Beginning in the 2026–2027 school year, subject to availability of local resources, each public middle, junior high, and high school may establish a junior color guard program.
- Junior color guard units may perform/present the colors at school events (e.g., interscholastic athletic events) and may participate in community events upon school approval.
- Schools may partner with civic organizations (including veterans’ groups or community groups) to obtain training, equipment, and other local or “military” resources to support the program.
- “Local or military resources” includes financial assistance, training, and equipment provided by civic organizations or local funds expended by the board.
Who is affected
- Public middle, junior high, and high schools in Illinois; students who may participate; school boards and local districts responsible for funding/approving programs; community civic organizations and veterans’ groups that might assist.
Procedural/timeline aspects
- Effective start date for optional implementation: 2026–2027 school year. Bill introduced Feb 2025 and referred to committee(s) for consideration.
Potential implications
- Creates an optional extracurricular opportunity emphasizing military honor; implementation depends on local funding and partnerships.
- Costs (training, equipment) are locally determined; schools may decline if resources are unavailable.
- Provides a framework for community partnerships to support student participation and program operations.
If you want, I can:
- Produce a side-by-side comparison of the two bills’ timelines and sponsors; or
- Expand the Arizona summary to include likely courtroom procedure changes and sample case flow; or
- Draft a short memo for school boards on implementing the Illinois junior color guard program.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
