In Re DDM
249 P.3d 5
Kan.2011Background
- Juvenile D.D.M., age 16, was charged with acts that would be felonies for an adult (aggravated robbery and criminal threats).
- State moved to prosecute as an adult under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2347(a)(2), creating a presumption of adult prosecution due to prior felony adjudication, age, and current charges.
- District court denied adult prosecution and ordered extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution (EJJP); State appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court’s EJJP order was an improper reweighing of evidence and remanded to prosecute as an adult.
- Supreme Court granted review to determine (a) appellate jurisdiction, (b) sufficiency of evidence to support EJJP, and (c) proper disposition under 38-2347(f).
- Court ultimately reverses Court of Appeals, affirming EJJP and remanding for EJJP proceedings under proper statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the EJJP order | State | D.D.M. | Yes; EJJP denial under 38-2381(a)(2) is reviewable. |
| Whether the district court had substantial competent evidence to support EJJP | State | D.D.M. | Yes; district court’s weighing of eight factors was non-abusive and supported EJJP. |
| Proper interpretation of dispositional options after denial of adult prosecution | State sought adult prosecution; EJJP permissible as alternative. | D.D.M. argued for EJJP under proper statutory read. | Subsection (f)(3) permits EJJP after denial of adult prosecution; (f)(2) does not apply here; court may designate EJJP. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 (2009) (standard of unlimited review for jurisdictional questions; substantial evidence framework for EJJP decisions)
- State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41 (2010) (statutory interpretation; in pari materia approach to 38-2347 provisions)
- State v. Breedlove, 285 Kan. 1006 (2008) (interpretation of 38-2347 factors; discretion in weighing factors)
- In re J.D.J., 266 Kan. 211 (1998) (standard for reviewing factual findings and discretion in weighing factors)
- Taylor v. State, 252 Kan. 98 (1992) (acceptance of evidence supporting findings; deference to trial court credibility)