In re Interest of Steven S., 908 N.W.2d 391

Steven S., a juvenile with a lengthy delinquency history dating to 2011, was charged with escape (Class IV felony) after freeing a wrist restraint and opening a transport vehicle door while being moved to YRTC-Kearney. He and another juvenile briefly fled but were recaptured without incident.
The State petitioned to transfer the case from juvenile court to county court; juvenile court held a transfer hearing and ultimately granted the State’s motion, concluding the State met its preponderance burden.
The juvenile court relied on Steven’s long history of offenses, multiple out-of-home placements, repeated absconding ("on run"), noncompliance with electronic monitoring, and failed prior rehabilitative efforts to find he was not amenable to juvenile treatment and posed a public safety risk.
A psychologist (Dr. Conoley) opined Steven was amenable to juvenile treatment and recommended trauma-focused care in juvenile settings; the court discounted parts of her report because probation records were not provided or consulted.
Juvenile probation staff testified that all available juvenile services had been tried and had not worked; the court emphasized impending loss of juvenile jurisdiction when Steven turned 19 and that recommitment to YRTC (the most restrictive juvenile option) had already failed twice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard of appellate review for juvenile-to-adult transfer	State: review for abuse of discretion	Steven: de novo review on the record	Court: de novo on the record for an abuse of discretion (with deference to credibility findings)
Who bears the burden to transfer when case originates in juvenile court	State: may transfer if evidence supports it	Steven: juvenile retention favored; burden on State	Held: State bears burden by a preponderance to show transfer is warranted
Whether §43-276 factors require juvenile retention	Steven: treatment amenability and youth favor retention	State: prior failures, public safety, age, and escape conduct favor transfer	Held: balancing §43-276 factors supported transfer—many factors favor adult court; not all factors must weigh against juvenile
Whether recent psychological opinion required retention	Steven: expert said juvenile system better for trauma treatment	State: probation testimony showed services exhausted; court questioned report validity	Held: court permissibly discounted the report given lack of collateral info and probation input; transfer affirmed

State v. Bluett, 295 Neb. 369 (review of transfers between juvenile and adult court uses similar §43-276 considerations)
In re Interest of Tyrone K., 295 Neb. 193 (interlocutory appealability of transfer orders and related jurisdictional principles)
State v. Stevens, 290 Neb. 460 (§43-276 balancing approach; no weighted factors)
In re Interest of LeVanta S., 295 Neb. 151 (appellate deference to credibility when evidence conflicts)
In re Interest of Tavian B., 292 Neb. 804 (context on transfer standards and juvenile-court matters)