in Re Timothy Terrell Bell Jr, 333005

Respondent (age 16, three days shy of 17) was charged with multiple felonies arising from an alleged sexual assault of a 15‑year‑old female high‑school freshman in a secluded girls’ bathroom, including first‑degree CSC and related offenses.
Respondent allegedly recorded the incident on his phone, showed the video to classmates, and discussed it with others; victim had autism and was found particularly vulnerable and emotionally harmed.
Prosecutor moved to waive family‑court jurisdiction under MCL 712A.4 to try respondent as an adult; the family division held the mandatory two‑phase waiver hearing.
Phase One: trial court found probable cause that respondent committed the charged offenses.
Phase Two: trial court weighed the six statutory best‑interest factors (MCL 712A.4(4)(a)–(f)), giving greater weight to seriousness and prior record, and concluded waiver served the juvenile’s and public’s interests.
Trial court determined juvenile system programming was inadequate for this offender/offense, respondent’s family was not motivated to assist, and adult system would provide longer‑term services; court waived jurisdiction. Appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion waiving juvenile jurisdiction to try respondent as an adult under MCL 712A.4	Petitioner (State) argued statutory two‑phase process satisfied: probable cause established and Phase Two factors showed waiver served juvenile and public interests (seriousness, victim impact, lack of suitable juvenile programming, family not cooperative).	Respondent argued evidence did not show that transferring jurisdiction to adult court served respondent’s or the public’s best interests.	Court affirmed: factual findings on all six factors were supported by a preponderance of evidence, not clearly erroneous; waiver was within range of principled outcomes and not an abuse of discretion.

In re Fultz, 211 Mich. App. 299 (discussing standard of review for juvenile waiver findings)
People v. Fultz, 453 Mich. 937 (related appellate treatment on other grounds)
People v. Babcock, 469 Mich. 247 (abuse of discretion standard explained)
People v. Williams, 245 Mich. App. 427 (Phase Two waiver procedure and factors)
People v. Thenghkam, 240 Mich. App. 29 (juvenile waiver statutory framework)
People v. Conat, 238 Mich. App. 134 (jurisdiction of family division over juveniles)
People v. Whitfield, 228 Mich. App. 659 (weighting seriousness and prior record in waiver analysis)
People v. Petty, 469 Mich. 108 (noting limits/abrogation aspects in waiver jurisprudence)