Bornsen v. Pragotrade, LLC
2011 ND 183
| N.D. | 2011Background
- State filed five counts of gross sexual imposition against Woodrow in district court after juvenile court transferred some counts; juvenile court later transferred counts four and five but not first three; M.W. I reversed the juvenile transfer order and remanded for transfer under §27-20-34(1)(c); Woodrow turned 20 and the juvenile court later transferred counts four and five to district court but not counts 1–3; M.W. II held juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to transfer when Woodrow was over 18; four complaints in district court charged five counts; Woodrow moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under §27-20-34(5) though the State argued §27-20-34(8) applied; district court dismissed all counts, prompting State appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §27-20-34(8) grants district court jurisdiction. | State: §27-20-34(8) applies since Woodrow is 20, acted as a child, not adjudicated, no intentional delay. | Woodrow: need adjudication in juvenile court; transfer orders void if not proper adjudication. | Yes; §27-20-34(8) applies and district court has jurisdiction. |
| Whether Woodrow was adjudicated in juvenile court for the offenses. | State: transfer hearings imply adjudication. | Woodrow: no final adjudication occurred in juvenile court. | No adjudication occurred; juvenile proceedings not final adjudication. |
| Whether the State intentionally delayed prosecution to avoid juvenile jurisdiction. | State: no intentional delay; proceeded appropriately. | Woodrow: delay evidenced by failed prior rulings. | No intentional delay shown; not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of M.W., 2009 ND 55 (2009) (reversed juvenile transfer order; clarified transfer standards)
- In Interest of M.W., 2010 ND 135 (2010) (juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to transfer when defendant reached age 20)