JB v. State

• Decision Date: 12 July 2013
• Docket Number: No. S–12–0239.,S–12–0239.
• Citation: 305 P.3d 1137
• Parties: JB, Petitioner, v. The STATE Of Wyoming, Respondent.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

305 P.3d 1137

JB, Petitioner,

v.The STATE Of Wyoming, Respondent.

No. S–12–0239.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 12, 2013.

Representing Petitioner: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Alden.

Representing Respondent: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Pope.

Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.

BURKE, Justice.

[¶ 1] The Petitioner, JB,¹ is a minor who was charged as an adult with nine felonies arising from a home invasion and the resulting deaths of two individuals. He was fifteen at the time of the crimes. Prior to trial, JB filed a Motion to Transfer Proceedings to Juvenile Court. The district court denied the motion. JB then filed a Petition for Writ of Review seeking interlocutory review of that decision. In support of his Petition, he claimed that the district court improperly placed the burden on him to establish that the case should be transferred to juvenile court. We granted the Petition. Upon review, we conclude that the district court erred in failing to assign the burden of persuasion to the State to establish that the case should not be transferred to juvenile court. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

ISSUE

[¶ 2] Although JB lists nine issues in his brief, we find a single issue to be dispositive: Did the district court improperly place the burden of persuasion on JB rather than on the State?

FACTS

[¶ 3] On March 14, 2012, JB was charged with two counts of first degree murder, two counts of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and one count of first degree arson. The prosecution alleged that JB had assisted three adults in their plan to rob and kill two victims in their home. It asserted that two of the adults entered the victims' home and robbed and attacked them, while JB and the other adult stayed outside to act as lookouts and messengers. Later, JB entered the home, and as instructed by one of the adults, allegedly struck one of the victims on the head with a dresser drawer. The prosecution alleged that JB may have struck the killing blow. It was further alleged that JB and one of the adults attempted to set fire to the home.

[¶ 4] Although JB was fifteen when the crimes were allegedly committed, he was charged in district court as an adult. JB moved to transfer his case to juvenile court. In his memorandum in support of the motion to transfer, JB asserted that he did not participate in the planning of the crimes, but was coerced into participating by the adults. He emphasized that he was developmentally challenged and immature, and likely to be rehabilitated by the services and facilities available to the juvenile court. The State resisted the motion. After substantial briefing from the parties, the district court held a hearing and, ultimately, denied the motion. JB filed a Petition for Writ of Review, seeking to challenge the district court's denial of his motion to transfer the proceedings to juvenile court. We granted the Petition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 5] “Allocation of the burden of proof is a matter of law.” Dan's Supermarket v. Pate, 2001 WY 104, ¶ 8, 33 P.3d 1121, 1124 (Wyo.2001); JM v. Department of Family Servs., 922 P.2d 219, 221 (Wyo.1996). We review questions of law de novo. Amoco Prod. Co. v. EM Nominee Partnership Co., 2 P.3d 534, 540 (Wyo.2000).

DISCUSSION

[¶ 6] Under Wyoming's Juvenile Justice Act, cases against minors fourteen or older who are charged with violent felonies “may be originally commenced either in the juvenile court or in the district court.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14–6–203(f)(iv). A minor being prosecuted in district court may move to have the proceedings transferred to juvenile court pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14–6–237(g), which provides as follows:

If any proceeding commenced in the district court is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the district court may on motion of any party or on its own motion order any proceeding transferred to the juvenile court. The district court judge may, after notice and hearing, find the matter more properly suited to disposition under the provisions of this act. The order of transfer confers upon the juvenile court full jurisdiction in the matter as if originally commenced in the juvenile court.

Subsection (b) of this statute sets forth the criteria to be considered by the court when making transfer decisions:

The court shall order the matter transferred to the appropriate court for prosecution if after the transfer hearing it finds that proper reason therefor exists. The determinative factors to be considered by the judge in deciding whether the juvenile court's jurisdiction over such offenses will be waived are the following:

(i) The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community required waiver;

(ii) Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner;

(iii) Whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons especially if personal injury resulted;

(iv) The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one (1) court when the juvenile's associates in the alleged offense are adults who will be charged with a crime;

(v) The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living;

(vi) The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with the law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation to this court, or prior commitments to juvenile institutions;

(vii) The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found to have committed the alleged offense) by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the juvenile court.

[¶ 7] As noted above, the district court denied JB's motion to transfer the case to juvenile court. The district court set forth its reasoning in a sixteen-page written decision discussing all of the statutory factors. In its order, the district court stated that JB “has the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this case should be transferred from District Court to Juvenile Court.” It concluded that JB “failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proceedings in this case should be transferred to Juvenile Court.” Relying on our decision in Hansen v. State, 904 P.2d 811 (Wyo.1995), JB claims that the district court erred in assigning the burden of persuasion to him. We agree.

[¶ 8] In Hansen, we considered two consolidated petitions for writs of review. In one, sixteen-year-old Arthur Hansen was charged as an adult in district court. His motion to transfer the proceedings to juvenile court was denied, and he petitioned for review of that decision. Id. at 814–15. In the other, proceedings in juvenile court were initiated against fifteen-year-old Derek Pappan. The State's motion to transfer his case to district court was granted, and he petitioned for review. Id. at 815. Both petitioners claimed that Wyoming's Juvenile Justice Act was “defective in failing to assign a burden of proof.” Id. at 823.

[¶ 9] In each case, the court had assigned the burden of persuasion to the State. We approved of that allocation of the burden, explaining as follows:

The phrase “burden of proof” is applied to two related, but different, concepts which occur in connection with pre-trial hearings. The burden of producing evidence is assigned to one party or the other and, likewise, the burden of persuasion is assigned to one party or the other. The interrelation and dynamics of these concepts is described in 1 CHRISTOPHER B. MUELLER & LAIRD C. KIRKPATRICK, FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 62, at 301 (2d ed.1994):

To say that a party bears the burden of producing evidence is to say she runs the risk of losing automatically (on a motion to dismiss or for judgment as a matter of law) if she does not offer sufficient evidence to enable a reasonable person to find in her favor. At the outset, usually the party who bears the burden of persuasion also bears the burden of production....

To say that a party bears the burden of persuasion (or the risk of nonpersuasion) is to say she can win only if the evidence persuades the trier of the existence of the facts that she needs in order to prevail. Ordinarily that means that she wins only if, on the basis of the evidence, the facts seem more likely true than not. Perhaps because this burden operates at the end of trial, courts often say it never “shifts.” (Footnote omitted.)

In both of these cases, the State was assigned the burden of persuading the court that the evidence supported the factors justifying the trial of the juvenile in district court. The burden of producing evidence appropriately is assigned to the party seeking relief. In Pappan's case, that was the prosecuting attorney who moved to transfer from juvenile court to district court. In the case of Hansen, that burden of producing evidence belonged to Hansen who moved to transfer the case from district court to juvenile court.

We reiterate that, in both of these pre-trial hearings, the court and the parties clarified the burden of persuasion prior to the end of the respective hearings.

Id. at 823–24 (emphasis added).

[¶ 10] JB's case is similar to Mr. Hansen's, in that criminal charges were filed in the district court and the motion for transfer to juvenile court was denied. In the instant case, the record does not indicate that there was any discussion...