State v. R. Talksabout
387 Mont. 166
| Mont. | 2017Background
- State charged Talksabout (17) with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and sought Youth Court transfer; District Court denied transfers after § 41-5-206(3) analysis; Talksabout pled guilty to one count and received 50 years with 10 suspended; transfers hinged on three § 41-5-206(3) factors (community protection, offense nature, best interests) and on Youth Court Act remedial aims.
- Two separate but consolidated charges: first with 14-year-old victim A.C. at an underage party; second with 12-year-old D.P. at another party; both involved non-consensual acts after being told no; both charged directly in district court due to enumerated offenses and Youth Court Act timing.
- District Court heard transfer motions in Jan 2014 (first) and July 2014 (second); court found two factors favored district court for community protection and nature of offense but found best interests favored Youth Court, yet denied transfer for both charges.
- Talksabout appeals challenging the transfer denials and the sentence; the Court of Appeals ultimately affirms the transfers denials and remands for amended judgment and sentence review under the relevant statutes.
- State urged transfer decisions and adherence to § 41-5-206(3); the majority upholds § 41-5-206(3) as to three factors, and remands to correct judgment and conduct a proper sentence review under § 41-5-2510.
- Judge dissent argues transfer was improper and urges default district court jurisdiction and resentencing under youth-appropriate processes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion denying transfer | Talksabout argues the court misapplied § 41-5-206(3) and relied on improper factors | State contends the court properly weighed conflicting evidence and three-factor test | Affirmed transfer denial; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether sentencing on conviction was properly handled | Talksabout contends sentence-review provisions were misapplied and rights offended | State concedes remand for proper sentence review but disputes additional scope | Remanded for amended judgment and sentence review consistent with the act |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dietsch, 2013 MT 245 (2013) (abuse of discretion standard and deference to district court on transfer)
- State v. Whiteman, 2005 MT 15 (2005) (substantial credible evidence required for transfer findings; deference to trial court on conflicts)
- State v. Derbyshire, 2009 MT 27 (2009) (abuse of discretion and reasonableness in transfer decisions)
- In re J.D.W., 267 Mont. 87, 881 P.2d 1324 (1994) (1994) (remedial purposes of Youth Court Act and transfer considerations)
- Whiteman (repeat), 2005 MT 15 (2005) (see above)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juvenile differences and developmental considerations in punishment)