Com. v. D.A.R.
694 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- D.A.R., age 17 at the time, was direct-filed in adult criminal court for two robberies (and related conspiracy/theft) occurring Sept. 14 and Sept. 20, 2015; allegations involved a co-defendant who displayed a firearm to taxi drivers.
- D.A.R. waived a preliminary hearing and later filed a motion to decertify (remand) the case to juvenile court under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6355.
- The trial court ordered a psychological evaluation (Dr. Gransee) and held a decertification hearing.
- Dr. Gransee testified D.A.R. has borderline intellectual functioning and ADHD; evidence showed negative adult influence from co-defendant and lack of prior residential treatment opportunities.
- The trial court granted decertification, finding D.A.R. more likely to be rehabilitated in juvenile court and that transfer would serve the public interest; the Commonwealth appealed, arguing burden-shifting and improper consideration of factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (D.A.R.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court misapplied § 6355(a)(4)(iii) and abused discretion in assessing Factors A (victim impact) and B (community impact) | Trial court required victim testimony and shifted burden to Commonwealth; should not rely on rehabilitative evidence for victim/community impact | Trial court properly weighed evidence presented and reasonably declined to infer more than the record showed | Court held no abuse; trial court may weigh only the evidence presented and did not impermissibly shift burden |
| Whether trial court erred by discounting accomplice liability when assessing Factors D (nature/circumstances) and E (degree of culpability) | Accomplice liability makes D.A.R. equally culpable; trial court should have treated him as principal for decertification analysis | Focus under § 6355(D)-(E) is the juvenile’s actual role and amenability to treatment; accomplice theories relate to criminal conviction, not decertification inquiry | Court held trial court properly focused on D.A.R.’s individual role and culpability for decertification purposes; no misapplication of law |
| Whether juvenile met burden to show transfer serves public interest under § 6322(a) | Commonwealth argued evidence insufficient given robbery seriousness | D.A.R. presented psychological and background evidence showing amenability to juvenile treatment | Court affirmed that D.A.R. met the preponderance standard and decertification was appropriate |
| Whether trial court impermissibly shifted burden of production to Commonwealth | Commonwealth claimed trial court expected rebuttal evidence on victim/community impact and culpability | D.A.R. argued he produced sufficient evidence and burden properly remained his to show transfer serves public interest | Court found no impermissible burden-shift; absence of rebuttal did not require additional proof from Commonwealth when D.A.R. satisfied his burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 26 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2011) (framework for decertification burden and § 6355 factors)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 920 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Super. 2007) (juvenile bears burden to show weapon was not a deadly weapon in decertification context)
- In re K.A.P., 916 A.2d 1152 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statutory construction principles guiding interpretation of juvenile statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2000) (explaining accomplice liability and its relation to criminal culpability)