Robert Hurd v. State of Arkansas
2021 Ark. App. 180
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2021Background:
- Appellant Robert Hurd was 17½ when charged in White County Circuit Court with two counts of attempted first-degree murder for allegedly shooting at a vehicle; one victim (Carl McGahee) suffered a neck injury.
- Hurd was charged as an adult; he moved to transfer the case to the juvenile division under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318.
- Hurd bore the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that transfer to juvenile court was appropriate.
- At the transfer hearing, Hurd presented testimony about his unstable family history, special-education needs, daily marijuana use, homelessness, and availability of juvenile rehabilitative services (outpatient/inpatient counseling, cognitive-behavioral therapy, substance-abuse treatment, DYS/EJJ aftercare).
- The State presented evidence on the violent facts of the alleged offense, possession of matching handguns, and that Hurd acted alone in planning and carrying out the shootings.
- The circuit court considered the statutory transfer factors, concluded the juvenile services would not likely rehabilitate Hurd before age 21 given the intentional and violent nature of the offense, and denied the transfer motion; the denial was appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred in denying transfer under Ark. Code § 9-27-318 | Hurd: evidence showed intellectual/mental-health deficits, high risk in emotional/family/substance areas, and available juvenile programs that would rehabilitate him—court failed to credit these factors | State: facts and seriousness of violent offense, injury to victim, and court’s findings supported denial; juvenile must prove transfer by clear and convincing evidence | Denial affirmed; court did not clearly err in weighing factors and finding transfer not shown by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the court properly assessed Hurd’s maturity/sophistication | Hurd: record shows slow comprehension, special-education placement, mental-health issues that undermine maturity finding | State: court considered mental-health history and found no diagnosed disorders undermining maturity finding | Court’s maturity finding upheld; appellate court will not reweigh evidence |
| Whether juvenile rehabilitative programs were adequate to justify transfer | Hurd: testified programs (e.g., outpatient/inpatient counseling, DYS/EJJ aftercare) would rehabilitate him before age 21 | State: court found programs unlikely to achieve rehabilitation before age 21 given Hurd’s age and the violent, intentional conduct | Court reasonably concluded programs would not likely rehabilitate before 21; factor favors denial |
| Standard of review for transfer determinations | Hurd (incorrectly in brief): urged abuse-of-discretion standard | State: argues correct standard is whether trial court clearly erred | Court and appellate decision apply the clearly erroneous standard; denial not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Neal v. State, 379 S.W.3d 634 (Ark. App. 2010) (defines clear-and-convincing-evidence standard used in transfer findings)
- Magana-Galdamez v. State, 291 S.W.3d 203 (Ark. App. 2009) (places burden on juvenile to prove transfer by clear and convincing evidence)
- M.R.W. v. State, 424 S.W.3d 355 (Ark. App. 2012) (articulates the clearly erroneous standard of review for transfer rulings)
- Clem v. State, 90 S.W.3d 428 (Ark. 2002) (appellate courts will not reweigh evidence credited by the trial court)
- C.B. v. State, 406 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2012) (serious and violent nature of offense can justify trying a juvenile as an adult)
- Lewis v. State, 596 S.W.3d 43 (Ark. App. 2020) (reaffirming that serious violent offenses support adult prosecution)