S. H. v. State, J-77-450

• Decision Date: 18 July 1978
• Docket Number: No. J-77-450,J-77-450
• Citation: 581 P.2d 916
• Parties: S. H., Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 916

581 P.2d 916

S. H., Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. J-77-450.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 18, 1978.

An Appeal from the Juvenile Division of the District Court, LeFlore County; John Henderson, Judge.

S.H., a juvenile, appeals from an order of the Juvenile Division of the District Court, LeFlore County, waiving jurisdiction over him and certifying him to stand trial as an adult on the charge of Murder in the Second Degree. REVERSED and REMANDED.

Robert E. Price, Moon & Price, Poteau, for appellant.

Dean E. Warren, Dist. Atty., LeFlore County, for appellee.

OPINION

BRETT, Judge.

The defendant, S. H., was charged with the offense of Murder in the Second Degree in violation of Laws 1973, c. 167, § 2 (repealed by Laws 1976, first Ex.Sess. c. 1, § 10, now 21 O.S.Supp.1977, § 701.8).

A minor at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant was certified to stand trial as an adult pursuant to Laws 1974, c. 272, § 2 (amended by 10 O.S.Supp.1977, § 1112). Thereafter, he was tried and found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 711. On appeal from that judgment, at 555 P.2d 1050 (1976), this Court reversed the conviction for a new certification hearing in keeping with the statutory and case law of the State of Oklahoma. In the earlier certification hearing, all the evidence dealt with prosecutive merit and with whether the defendant knew right from wrong when he committed the offense and was sane under the laws of Oklahoma. The order certifying the defendant from the initial certification hearing stated that the defendant had sufficient mental capacity to know the difference between right and wrong and to be held accountable for his acts and that he should be prosecuted as an adult.

In the opinion, this Court pointed out that while the record of the initial certification hearing showed that there might be prosecutive merit to the complaint, the record was devoid of evidence to show that the defendant was not amenable to rehabilitation by the juvenile division. This Court pointed out that knowing the difference between right and wrong was only one of several factors to be taken into consideration in certifying a juvenile. The judge needed to have made a finding based on substantial evidence that the defendant was not amenable to the rehabilitative facilities of the juvenile court, and there is no presumption that a child who has committed a very serious act is not receptive to rehabilitative treatment. See also, J. T. P. v. State, Okl.Cr., 544 P.2d 1270 (1975). This Court further said in S. H. v. State, supra, that if the facts presented at the new certification hearing did not justify certification, then the defendant would have to be dealt with within the juvenile system.

The evidence with regard to amenability to rehabilitation at the second certification hearing was as follows. A school administrator in the defendant's school district testified that he was well acquainted with the defendant, that the defendant was an average student and of average maturity and sophistication for a boy his age. He further testified that since the incident out of which this proceeding arose the defendant had continued in school as a full-time student, had completed his high school education, and had received an outstanding student award. He also stated that he was aware of no prior or subsequent contacts with the law by the defendant.

The State's second witness, a district supervisor for the Department of Institutions, Social and Rehabilitative Services, testified that although he had no personal knowledge of the defendant, a child who had no previous or subsequent contacts with the law, who had successfully continued and completed his education after being charged with a crime, who had participated in extracurricular activities, and who had received school honors would be likely to benefit under a probationary system.

The State's last witness, Dr. R. D. Garcia, a forensic psychiatrist at Eastern State Hospital in Vinita, Oklahoma, stated that in testing the defendant, he had found no evidence of psychosis or physical disorders, that the defendant was not overtly aggressive, and that the episode was an isolated incident which was not likely to be repeated in the future. In conclusion, Dr. Garcia stated that in his opinion the defendant did not need to be rehabilitated, because he already was rehabilitated.

The defense put on numerous witnesses who testified that they had...