In Re Ddm
249 P.3d 5
Kan.2011Background
- D.D.M., age 16, committed a November 2008 alleged armed robbery and threats with a paintball gun; district court reserved ruling on adult prosecution and considered extended juvenile jurisdiction; State sought adult prosecution under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2347(a)(2); district court designated extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution (EJJP) after weighing eight statutory factors; Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to prosecute as an adult; Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
- Presumption of adulthood applied under 38-2347(a)(2); eight EJJP factors required consideration under 38-2347(e); district court relied on juvenile history and potential for rehabilitation in EJJP; evidence included testimony from victims and police, and D.D.M.’s prior juvenile records; district court concluded EJJP better served juvenile and community interests.
- District court’s order granted EJJP, citing rehabilitation prospects and eight factors; State appealed to Court of Appeals; Court of Appeals reversed, holding insufficient substantial evidence to support EJJP; Supreme Court granted review to determine jurisdiction, statutory framework, and sufficiency of evidence; Court of Appeals ultimately reversed, and Supreme Court affirmed EJJP designation on review.
- The opinion clarifies that a district court may choose EJJP or adult prosecution, the denial of adult prosecution can be followed by EJJP under 38-2347(f)(3), and that appellate review applies to EJJP decisions for substantial evidence and discretion in weighing factors.
- The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the order under 38-2381(a)(2); the circuit correctly reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed EJJP designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review | State argues CJ Court of Appeals has jurisdiction | D.D.M. argues no jurisdiction | Jurisdiction exists; EJJP order reviewable under 38-2381(a)(2) |
| Whether district court properly designated EJJP or adult prosecution | State contends factors support adult prosecution | D.D.M. argues EJJP warranted | Court held EJJP designation proper based on statutory factors and discretion |
| Whether there was substantial competent evidence to support EJJP | State asserts strong evidence of risk and lack of rehabilitation | D.D.M. argues insufficient to overcome presumption | District court’s findings supported by substantial competent evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Proper interpretation of the dispositional options under 38-2347(f) | State asserts two viable options (adult or EJJP) | D.D.M. asserts only two options were mischaracterized | Subsection (f)(3) permits EJJP after denial of adult prosecution; (f)(2) does not apply here; designating EJJP was proper under (f)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 286 Kan. 460 (2008) (discussed EJJP structure and the nature of its hybrid proceedings)
- State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 (2009) (standard of review for jurisdiction—is unlimited)
- State v. Mays, 277 Kan. 359 (2004) (substantial evidence standard for adult prosecution decisions)
- State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418 (2007) (standard for substantial evidence in EJJP context)
- State v. Breedlove, 285 Kan. 1006 (2008) (statutory interpretation when reconciling parallel provisions)