Juvenile Court Abused Its Discretion in Certifying Juvenile to Adult Court

In the Matter of the Welfare of J.H., Minn.Ct.App., 3//4/2013.  The juvenile court certified J.H. to adult court; he appealed.  The state had charged J.H. with first degree criminal sexual conduct, conspiracy to commit first degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, and committing a crime for the benefit of a gang.  J.H. was in a bedroom as several other males sexually assaulted G.K.  J.H. did not assault G.K. or hold her down during the assault.

There are six statutory factors that the juvenile court must consider in making a certification decision:

(1) the seriousness of the alleged offense in terms of community protection, including the existence of any aggravating factors recognized by the Sentencing Guidelines, the use of a firearm, and the impact on any victim;

(2) the culpability of the child in committing the alleged offense, including the level of the child’s participation in planning and carrying out the offense and the existence of any mitigating factors recognized by the Sentencing Guidelines;

(3) the child’s prior record of delinquency;

(4) the child’s programming history, including the child’s past willingness to participate meaningfully in available programming;

(5) the adequacy of the punishment or programming available in the juvenile justice system; and

(6) the dispositional options available for the child.

Factors (1) and (3) must be given greater weight in this determination.  In re Welfare of P.C.T., 823 N.W.2d 676, 684 .(Minn. App. 2012).  The juvenile court concluded that only factor (3) favored EJJ designation and that all of the remaining five factors favored adult certification.  The court of appeals reverses this determination.  The court concluded that the juvenile court had abused its discretion by determining that J.H.’s programming history, the adequacy of the punishment or programming available, and the dispositional options available favor adult certification. 

The court also concluded that the juvenile court had also abused its discretion by giving greater weight to the seriousness of the offense but not to J.H.’s prior record of delinquency.  The court said that the juvenile court accorded the proper weight to the seriousness of the alleged offense (which favored certification), but that it failed to accord the proper weight to J.H.’s prior record of delinquency (which favored EJJ designation). 

By reversing the juvenile court on statutory grounds, the court avoids addressing J.H.’s constitutional challenge to the certification process. 

There was a vigorous dissent.