In Re The Welfare Of J.H.

844 N.W.2d 28 (2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The victim (G.K.) was 14 years old and told a sexual assault nurse at Children's Hospital that she had been raped by gang members. Two gang members forcibly removed G.K. from the car and carried her into a bedroom in the house. G.K. was screaming and resisted going into the bedroom. G.K. was pushed down onto a mattress, her clothing was removed, and then she was held down by several of the gang members and raped by another gang member. Someone in the room yelled 'police,' and everybody ran out of the bedroom and the house. G.K. told police that there were between six and eight individuals in the bedroom, including D, during the rape. There was plenty of testimony. D admitted that he was a TB22 gang member and showed police his gang tattoo. D stated that he was in the room when the rape occurred. D admitted that the rape stopped because someone said the police were coming. The State filed a juvenile petition alleging D was delinquent based on first-degree criminal sexual conduct, conspiracy to commit first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, and committing a crime for the benefit of a gang. D was charged as both a principal and as an accomplice. The State presented evidence consistent with the police investigation. The State argued the seriousness of the offense. The court certified D to stand trial as an adult in district court; D had not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that retaining the proceeding in the juvenile court would serve public safety. Of the six public safety factors, only D's lack of a prior record of delinquency was in his favor. The court rejected opinions that public safety would be served by designating D for EJJ prosecution because, among other reasons, they were unable to testify that even with the available programming it was likely that D would not pose a threat to public safety. A divided court of appeals reversed. The juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to expressly weigh the seriousness of the alleged offense and D's prior record of delinquency separately from the other public safety factors and by failing to specifically delineate how its determination of these two factors impacted its certification decision. The State appealed.