State v. Fleming, 44860
Decision Date | 01 November 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 44860,44860 |
Citation | 223 N.W.2d 397,302 Minn. 61 |
Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Jude Douglas FLEMING, Respondent. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, William B. Randall, County Atty., Steven C. DeCoster, Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, for appellant.
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
This is an appeal by the state from an order of the St. Paul municipal court dismissing a prosecution for aggravated assault on the ground that the juvenile court had exclusive original jurisdiction over defendant. In affirming the municipal court's order, we hold that under Minn.St. c. 260, as amended, juvenile courts, and not courts of general jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over individuals who, although under age 18 at the time of the alleged offense, are age 18 or over when the prosecutions are commenced.
In order to understand the problem presented by this appeal, we must first set out the statutes relating to the issue of juvenile court jurisdiction prior to the 1973 and 1974 legislative sessions 1 and then the amendments passed during those sessions:
(1) Minn.St. 260.015, subd. 2, defines 'child' as 'an individual under 18 years of age and includes any minor alleged to have been delinquent or a juvenile traffic offender prior to having become 18 years of age.'
(2) Minn.St.1971, § 260.015, subd. 9, defined 'minor' as 'an individual under 21 years of age.'
(3) Minn.St. 260.111, subd. 1, provides:
(4) Minn.St. 260.115, subd. 1, provides:
'Except where a juvenile court has referred an alleged violation to a prosecuting authority in accordance with the provisions of section 260.125, or to a court in accordance with the provisions of section 260.193, a court other than a juvenile court shall immediately transfer to the juvenile court of the county the case of a minor who appears before the court on a charge of violating any state or local law or ordinance and who is under 18 years of age or who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the alleged offense.'
(5) Minn.St. 260.125, subd. 1, provides in part:
'When a child is alleged to have violated a state or local law or ordinance after becoming 14 years of age the juvenile court may enter an order referring the alleged violation to the appropriate prosecuting authority * * *.'
(6) Minn.St.1971, § 260.181, subd. 4, provided:
(7) Minn.St. 260.215, subd. 1, provides:
'A violation of a state or local law or ordinance by a child before becoming 18 years of age is not a crime unless the juvenile court refers the matter to the appropriate prosecuting authority in accordance with the provisions of section 260.125 or to a court in accordance with the provisions of section 260.193.'
In 1973 the legislature, when it changed the laws relating to the age of majority, amended § 260.015, subd. 9, so that it now defines minor as 'an individual under 18 years of age.' L.1973, c. 725, § 50. The effect of this change was considered by this court en banc in State v. Dugan, 297 Minn. 374, 211 N.W.2d 876 (1973). In that decision we stated that 'facially at least' the effect of the amendment was to deprive the juvenile court of jurisdiction in any prosecution involving a defendant age 18 or over notwithstanding the fact that the alleged acts occurred when defendant was age 17 or under. However, the court in that case held that the juvenile court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Behl
...The alleged acts took place on January 23, 1995. He was charged by criminal complaint on January 26, 1995. See State v. Fleming, 302 Minn. 61, 223 N.W.2d 397, 400 (1974) (stating that essential question in determining which court has jurisdiction is age of individual when alleged violation ......
-
Stuart v. State ex rel. Jannings
...under 18 at time of an alleged offense even though the party be over 18 when proceedings are commenced. See State v. Fleming, 302 Minn. 61, 223 N.W.2d 397 (1974). As supportively stated, id., at "It seems clear to us that the essential question therefore is not when prosecution takes place,......
-
Ewers v. Thunderbird Aviation, Inc.
...and absurd results, which, of course, we presume the legislature did not intend. E. g., Minn.St. 645.17(1); State v. Fleming, 302 Minn. 61, 233 N.W.2d 397 (1974). A review of the physical configuration of the state of Minnesota discloses that many plane trips, even though intrastate in plac......
-
State ex rel. Elliot v. District Court of Sixth Judicial Dist., In and For Sweet Grass County
...violation of the constitution...." 296 N.W.2d at 407. S.V. held the defendant could be prosecuted and distinguished State v. Fleming (1974), 302 Minn. 61, 223 N.W.2d 397, cited here by relator, based upon statutory differences and because the offender in that case could still be tried in ju......