"1. Neither the fact that a person was before the family court under this article for a hearing nor any confession, admission or statement made by him to the court or to any officer thereof in any stage of the proceeding is admissible as evidence against him or his interests in any other court.
"2. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision one, another court, in imposing sentence upon an adult after conviction may receive and consider the records and information on file with the family court, unless such records and information have been sealed pursuant to section 375.1."
" Family Court Act § 381.2 is clear on its face and provides that neither the fact that a person was before the Family Court in a juvenile delinquency proceeding for a hearing, nor any confession, admission, or statement made by such a person to the Family Court, or to any officer thereof in any stage of that proceeding, is admissible in any other court (see Family Ct Act § 381.2 ).
"Where words of a statute are free from ambiguity and express plainly, clearly and distinctly the legislative intent, resort may not be had to other means of interpretation" (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 76). The above-cited language of the Family Court Act is unambiguous and makes clear "that the Legislature has sought to protect young persons who have violated the criminal statutes of this State from acquiring the stigma that accompanies a criminal conviction".
As noted above, the sole statutory exception to the confidentiality provisions of Family Court Act § 381.2 permits consideration of records and information relating to a juvenile delinquency adjudication by a court in imposing sentence upon an adult (see Family Ct Act § 381.2 ).
However, a SORA proceeding is civil in nature (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 572 ), and a risk level determination is not a sentence (see CPL 1.20 ).
Thus, the statutory exception is inapplicable. Consequently, we hold that the Board, which is merely an advisory panel, exceeded its authority by adopting that portion of the Guidelines which includes juvenile delinquency adjudications in its definition of crimes for the purpose of determining a sex offender's criminal history".
So - THE ONLY time when a criminal court may consider juvenile delinquency adjudications is when an adult criminal defendant HAS BEEN ALREADY CONVICTED OF A CRIME and the COURT IS CONSIDERING HOW TO SENTENCE/PUNISH HIM AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVICTION, and even then, when such a sentencing concerns a sex offender, the risk level of the offender may not be determined with the help of such a juvenile adjudication.
The law makes it clear that juvenile adjudications may not, under any circumstances, be used in a CRIMINAL TRIAL against the defendant.
Any attempt by the prosecution to even hint to the public in a public record that the criminal defendant HAD juvenile adjudications before trial and for use in trial is prosecutorial misconduct meant to irreversibly contaminate the jury pool and obtain a wrongful conviction based on sealed inadmissible records.
If any such attempt is made in a criminal proceeding, a motion to disqualify prosecution for misconduct should be immediately made, as well as a motion to recuse a judge if the judge allows introduction of such records.