In re D.D.M.
291 Kan. 883
| Kan. | 2011Background
- D.D.M., age 16, charged with acts that would be felonies if adult (aggravated robbery and two counts of criminal threat).
- State sought to prosecute as an adult under presumption in K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2347(a)(2).
- District court denied adult prosecution, opting for Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile Prosecution (EJJP).
- Court of Appeals reversed, directing adult prosecution; Supreme Court granted review.
- District court issued EJJP designation after weighing eight statutory factors under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2347(e).
- Court of Appeals later held the evidence insufficient to support EJJP; Supreme Court granted review to reexamine the proper framework and standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction to review EJJP order proper? | State argues EJJP order constitutes denial of adult prosecution and falls within 38-2381(a)(2). | D.D.M. contends EJJP is a hybrid proceeding; jurisdiction is improper for this appeal. | Yes; EJJP denial constitutes reviewable order under 38-2381(a)(2). |
| How should the court interpret the EJJP dispositional options and related presumptions? | State emphasizes presumption of adult prosecution (a)(2) and limited EJJP options. | D.D.M. argues proper use of EJJP under (a)(3) and burden-shifting under (a)(4). | Discretionary options under 38-2347(f) allow EJJP upon denial of adult-prosecution motion; presumption context governs the analysis. |
| Was there substantial competent evidence to support EJJP designation? | State contends eight factors support adult designation. | D.D.M. argues factors favor EJJP based on rehabilitative prospects and lack of violence. | Yes; district court properly weighed factors with deference to its factual findings; evidence was substantial and competent. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by relying on juvenile-record factors? | Court of Appeals focused on juvenile-record-based implications. | District court may consider prior files if they contain substantial evidence for the factors. | No abuse; findings supported by record; appellate review may not substitute its assessment for the district court’s. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 (2009) (unlimited review of jurisdictional questions; standard of review for jurisdictional rulings)
- State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41 (2010) (statutory interpretation; in pari materia considerations)
- State v. Breedlove, 285 Kan. 1006 (2008) (restrictive or expansive interpretation of EJJP and related presumptions)
- In re L.M., 286 Kan. 460 (2008) (dissent cited on EJJP structure; informs scope of review)
- In re J.D.J., 266 Kan. 211 (1998) (standard for reviewing district court findings in juvenile cases)
- State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418 (2007) (evidence standards and factor-based analysis in EJJP)
- State v. Mays, 277 Kan. 359 (2004) (substantial evidence standard for adult-prosecution decisions)
- State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 (2009) (see above)