State v. Holland
| Decision Date | 28 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 8514-0-I,8514-0-I |
| Citation | 30 Wn.App. 366,635 P.2d 142 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Daniel W. HOLLAND, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
William Jaquette, Eastside Defenders Ass'n, Seattle, for appellant.
Norm Maleng, King County Pros. Atty., Andrew Hamilton, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
Daniel Holland appeals from a juvenile court order declining jurisdiction and a superior court jury conviction of murder in the second degree and rape in the second degree.
On August 14, 1979, the body of 11-year-old Ruth Spencer was found by her brother in a shallow grave near the family's home. She had been shot through the head with a .22 caliber rifle and there was evidence of sexual intercourse. The defendant, Ruth's 16-year-old cousin, was living with the Spencers at the time and admitted to them that he was to blame. The police were called and Holland was taken into custody, where he gave a statement concerning the matter.
Holland was arraigned in juvenile court and charged with murder in the first degree, rape in the first degree, and statutory rape in the second degree. A juvenile court probation counselor, was assigned as Holland's caseworker. Pursuant to RCW 13.40.110(1)(a), 1 the State filed a motion to decline juvenile court jurisdiction and remand the case for criminal prosecution as an adult. The juvenile court caseworker was ordered by the juvenile court to arrange for psychological or psychiatric evaluations to aid the court in its determination whether to decline jurisdiction. Evaluations were conducted by Drs. Gordon Carlson, James McDermott, and Irwin Dreiblatt, all of whom met with Holland at least once before preparing their reports. Holland's attorney had advised him to speak freely with the professionals, which, to varying degrees Holland did. He told Dr. Dreiblatt that he pointed the gun intentionally at Ruth, but that the shooting was unintended. Dr. Carlson and Dr. McDermott were told that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that the shooting was accidental when he tripped over a box.
At the decline hearing, testimony was presented establishing that, if Holland remained in the juvenile justice system, he could be released from custody in as little as 191/2 months, and in no event would he be confined beyond his 21st birthday. Were Holland prosecuted as an adult, he would be eligible for parole no sooner than 13 years and 4 months after sentencing, when he would be about 30 years old. There was a general consensus among those testifying that the juvenile justice system would afford Holland superior rehabilitative services than would the adult system.
The three mental health professionals retained to examine Holland rendered their professional evaluations, testifying as to his mental health, possible danger to society, potential for treatment, and the comparative availability of treatment facilities in the juvenile and adult corrections programs. Their evaluations can generally be summarized by the conclusions of Dr. Dreiblatt:
A. I think without question Dan is an extremely immature, intellectually limited youngster, who comes from a very erratic and deprived environment. As has been mentioned before, a juvenile in every sense of the word, and in that sense, I believe should be dealt with in the juvenile system and would require that kind of intervention and treatment to have any hopes of profiting in the years to come and with any success. I think, as a very limited juvenile, would (fare) very badly in the adult system, that that would be a destructive influence upon him, that he would likely not receive constructive assistance, so in that sense I strongly feel that his needs are such, that he would best be treated in the juvenile system. The other side of the dilemma is that, given the violent nature of the offense, his inability at this point to try to confront that in a way that would give us some better indication of the nature of that act and how he may deal with it in the years to come, and his limited capabilities make me very concerned about his--about the safety of this youngster being in the community without any restrictions four years hence.
Q. Are you able to give this Court any kind of assurance that he will be safe? That he will be safe to be at large in the community in four years?
A. I cannot.
When the State moved to admit the written reports of the three doctors, counsel for Holland objected to their admissibility in the juvenile's legal file. The juvenile court sustained the objection because the reports were duplicated in the social file, and then ordered the exhibits sealed. 2 Holland's attorney reiterated that the basis for his motion was that much of the testimony relevant to the decline hearing would not be admissible during the adult trial.
In its oral decision, the juvenile court declined jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the adult court. 3 RCW 13.40.110(3) requires that the juvenile court enter written findings of fact supporting its decision. The written findings in this case consisted merely of a standardized form upon which the court checked-off those reasons it found to support its conclusion. Holland had previously stipulated to the sufficiency of the evidence as to all counts charged in the information, and this box was checked. The only other finding marked by the court was that "(t)he protection of the community requires a decline due to the seriousness of the alleged offense(s), which was/were committed in an aggressive, violent, premediated (sic) or willful manner."
Prior to trial in superior court, the statement Holland gave to police the evening of the incident was suppressed. The State dismissed Count III, statutory rape in the second degree. Holland made a motion in limine to exclude all inculpatory statements made to Dr. Dreiblatt. The trial court reserved ruling on the motion until the issue arose at trial.
In his opening statement to the jury, counsel for Holland made three separate references to his intention to call all three doctors to testify as to Holland's emotional problems and lack of maturity. In its case-in-chief, the State did not call the doctors or refer to their reports. After the State rested, Holland was called to testify on his own behalf and recount his version of the incident. On cross-examination, the State extensively questioned Holland, over his objection, about his earlier statements to the doctors. The State also introduced a document, entitled "My Thoughts," which was an inculpatory statement Holland made, under Dr. Dreiblatt's direction, concerning the incident. Holland also called Drs. McDermott and Carlson to the stand. In rebuttal, the State called Dr. Dreiblatt to illustrate inconsistencies in Holland's testimony and underscore that Holland did not assert to Dreiblatt that the shooting was accidental. Unlike Drs. Carlson and McDermott, Dr. Dreiblatt was never questioned about his professional evaluation of Holland's mental health or emotional maturity. In its cross-examination of Holland, the State elicited an acknowledgement that more than 2 weeks elapsed after the shooting before Holland claimed the incident was accidental. The State noted this in its closing argument to the jury.
The jury convicted Holland of murder in the second degree and rape in the second degree. The trial court imposed consecutive prison terms of 20 years for the murder and 10 years for the rape.
Holland first challenges the juvenile court's decision to decline jurisdiction, contending that the record made by the court and its written findings of fact do not satisfy the requirements of due process. RCW 13.40.110(2) and (3) provide:
(2) The court after a decline hearing may order the case transferred for adult criminal prosecution upon a finding that the declination would be in the best interest of the juvenile or the public. The court shall consider the relevant reports, facts, opinions, and arguments presented by the parties and their counsel.
(3) When the respondent is transferred for criminal prosecution or retained for prosecution in juvenile court, the court shall set forth in writing its finding which shall be supported by relevant facts and opinions produced at the hearing.
The juvenile court's findings of fact must be of sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review. In re Harbert, 85 Wash.2d 719, 538 P.2d 1212 (1975). The juvenile court should be upheld unless the findings are not supported by substantial evidence or do not sustain the conclusions of law. In re Dodge, 29 Wash.App. 486, 628 P.2d 1343 (1981).
The consequences of a decline of jurisdiction may be severe. Although juveniles will be held accountable for their behavior, juvenile courts are vested with broad powers to provide any necessary treatment, guidance, or rehabilitation for juvenile offenders. The procedures are not as punitive as are adult criminal proceedings. State v. Lawley, 91 Wash.2d 654, 591 P.2d 772 (1979). Juveniles transferred for adult criminal prosecution are thereafter denied access to the juvenile courts for subsequent offenses, RCW 13.04.030(6) (a), and must be tried as adults.
Although decline proceedings are non-adversarial, the juvenile is afforded the protections of the due process clauses of the United States and Washington constitutions. In re Harbert, supra. A juvenile is entitled to a hearing, access to counsel, and a statement of reasons supporting the court's decisions before juvenile court jurisdiction is declined. Dillenburg v. Maxwell, 70 Wash.2d 331, 413 P.2d 940, 422 P.2d 783 (1966); RCW 13.40.110, .140. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 566-67, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1059-60, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), enumerated eight "determinative factors" which must be considered by the juvenile court:
1. The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires waiver.
2. Whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burke
...misled into believing J.S. was 16, if that were in fact true. This was entirely appropriate. See ER 801(d)(2)(ii); State v. Holland, 30 Wash.App. 366, 384, 635 P.2d 142 (1981) (defendant's failure to claim a shooting was accidental at the time he admitted involvement to the victim's family ......
-
Monroe By and Through Broulette v. Soliz, 63643-5
...him as an adult for all future offenses. State v. Mitchell, 32 Wash.App. 499, 500, 648 P.2d 456 (1982); see also State v. Holland, 30 Wash.App. 366, 373, 635 P.2d 142 (1981) ("Juveniles transferred for adult criminal prosecution are thereafter denied access to the juvenile courts for subseq......
-
J.N. By and Through Hager v. Bellingham School Dist. No. 501
...her communications with the doctors would be kept confidential." 29 Wash.App. at 753, 630 P.2d 944. Similarly, in State v. Holland, 30 Wash.App. 366, 635 P.2d 142 (1981), aff'd, 98 Wash.2d 507, 656 P.2d 1056 (1983), the court rejected the argument that a juvenile defendant's statements to a......
-
In re Personal Restraint Petition of Diaz, 42064-3-II
... ... 9.94A RCW. Solis Diaz ... unsuccessfully challenged only his convictions in a direct ... appeal to this court. State v. Solis-Diaz , noted at ... 152 Wn.App. 1038 (2009), review denied , 168 Wn.2d ... 1020 (2010). Having never challenged his sentence, ... support a declination decision but the record must ... demonstrate that each of the factors was considered ... State v. Holland , 30 Wn.App. 366, 374, 635 P.2d 142 ... (1981), aff'd , 98 Wn.2d 507, 656 P.2d 1056 ... (1983) ... [ 6 ] We note that Solis ... ...
-
§60.6 Analysis
...114 Wn.App. 866, 60P.3d681 (2003). Most courts have denied motions to vacate based on newly discovered evidence. In State v. Holland, 30 Wn.App. 366, 375, 635 P.2d 142 (1981), aff'd, 98 Wn.2d 507, 656 P.2d 1056 (1983), the defendant moved for reconsideration on the basis that new evidence "......