M.R.W. v. State
2012 Ark. App. 591
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- M.R.W. was charged in July 2011 with first-degree murder and eleven counts of terroristic act for May 2011 conduct that included robbing and shooting two young men; one died and the other was injured.
- Her alleged role was to arrange a meeting to lure Doss and Ford for a robbery, directing them to a location where they were robbed and shot.
- At that time, M.R.W. was nearly seventeen years old (born June 12, 1994).
- A transfer hearing occurred on October 31, 2011, and the trial court denied transfer; a written order with reasons was filed November 10, 2011; M.R.W. timely appealed December 2, 2011.
- The Arkansas transfer framework requires clear and convincing evidence to transfer, with the court weighing ten specified factors and issuing written findings.
- Three witnesses testified for M.R.W. about juvenile services, family history, and potential rehabilitation, while evidence showed violent, planned offenses committed in a group context and some gang involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of transfer was clearly erroneous | Glover contends denial failed to properly consider transfer criteria. | State argues the court adequately weighed all factors and the evidence supported denial. | No; denial not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether EJJ designation matters when transfer is denied | M.R.W. argues all charges are EJJ-designated and could enable rehabilitation if transferred. | EJJ designation cannot be entered unless transfer to juvenile court is approved. | Not applicable; EJJ not decided since transfer was denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 281 (Ark. App. 2012) (sets standard of review for juvenile-transfer decisions; clear and convincing burden; not reversed absent clear error)
- Neal v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 744 (Ark. App. 2010) (defines clear and convincing standard)
- D.D.R. v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 329 (Ark. App. 2012) (permits weighing factors without requiring equal weight)
- Magana-Galdamez v. State, 104 Ark.App. 280 (Ark. App. 2009) (treats burden on movant to show transfer by clear and convincing evidence)
- J.S. v. State, 2009 Ark.App. 710 (Ark. App. 2009) (addresses EJJ considerations in context of transfer)
- Lofton v. State, 2009 Ark. 341 (Ark. 2009) (discusses framework for juvenile-transfer decisions)