State v. Woodrow
803 N.W.2d 572
N.D.2011Background
- State appeals district court’s dismissal of five counts of gross sexual imposition for lack of jurisdiction; court held no jurisdiction, State reverses and seeks district court proceedings.
- In 2007, State filed summons and amended petition in juvenile court alleging five counts; juvenile court transferred to district court, later reversed on appeal.
- M.W. I (2009) held the initial transfer was improper and remanded for transfer under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-34(l)(c).
- On remand (Aug. 2009), juvenile court held transfer hearings; Woodrow turned 20 on Jan 3, 2010; orders (Jan 6–7, 2010) transferred counts 4–5 to district court but denied counts 1–3; Woodrow appealed.
- M.W. II (2010) held juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the matter at the time of transfer because Woodrow had turned 20; subsequent district court proceedings ensued.
- State filed four district court complaints in 2010 alleging five counts; Woodrow moved to dismiss under § 27-20-34(5); district court granted dismissal; State appealed getting jurisdiction under § 27-20-34(8).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court has jurisdiction under § 27-20-34(8). | Woodrow argues § 27-20-34(8) governs when child turns 20 and offenses were committed as a child. | State asserts § 27-20-34(8) provides original and exclusive district court jurisdiction. | Yes; § 27-20-34(8) applies and district court has jurisdiction. |
| Whether Woodrow was adjudicated or the State intentionally delayed to avoid juvenile jurisdiction. | State contends there was adjudication via transfer hearings; no intent to delay. | Woodrow argues no adjudication occurred and no intentional delay proven. | Woodrow not adjudicated; no proven intentional delay; jurisdiction remains under § 27-20-34(8). |
| Whether res judicata or unappealed juvenile orders affect district court jurisdiction. | Res judicata may bar challenges to jurisdiction. | Unappealed orders were void or lacked jurisdiction; not binding on the district court. | Res judicata does not defeat district court jurisdiction under § 27-20-34(8). |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of M.W., 2010 ND 135 (2010) (juvenile court lacked jurisdiction when the defendant turned 20; transfer orders void)
- Interest of M.W., 2009 ND 55, 764 N.W.2d 185 (2009) (reversal and remand for transfer under § 27-20-34(l)(c))
- Kaspari v. Olson, 2011 ND 124, 799 N.W.2d 348 (2011) (statutory interpretation of ch. 27-20; harmonization and plain meaning)
- In re T.A.S., 62 S.W.3d 650 (Mo.Ct.App. 2001) (definition of adjudication as final judicial decision)
- In re M.A.V., 88 S.W.3d 327 (Tex.Ct. App. 2002) (pretrial hearings not adjudicative in juvenile context)
- State v. Dion, 131 Wash.App. 729, 129 P.3d 805 (2006) (probable cause/detention not adjudication of delinquency)
- State v. Whisenant, 127 Ohio App.3d 75, 711 N.E.2d 1016 (1998) (bindover not adjudication)
- People v. P.H., 145 Ill.2d 209, 582 N.E.2d 700 (1991) (transfer decisions not adjudication)