People in Interest of LVA

of the State of South The PEOPLE Interest of L. V. in the

Dakota

A., a child.

No. of South Dakota.

Supreme Court 16, 1976.

Dec. Jan.

Rehearing Denied Richards,

Gary Spearfish, R. for appel- lant. Christianson,

Harry Gen., W. Atty. Asst. Pierre, respondent State of South Dako- ta; Janklow, Gen., Pierre, Atty. William J. on the brief.

ZASTROW, Justice. on an

This case before us intermediate appeal from a transfer certificate Eighth Circuit Judicial Court of Circuit rifles, transfer certifi- session of the County. By explaining its Butte L.V.A., a transferred cate, “had they the circuit fired their rifles downtown.” pro- criminal court for to adult alleging delinquency A petition attempted upon two counts ceedings 27, 1976, juveniles February was filed murder. to commit conspiracy County Butte Attorney. State’s hearing appeal and in this At the transfer delinquency of was to be the act following questions: raises the juvenile the shooting at the officers with the intent to juvenile After the kill. released on 26-11-4 unconstitutional (1) Is SDCL bond, the attorney general filed a “Petition vagueness; Request Hearing” for Transfer on and justi- to evidence there sufficient (2) Was 17, 1976, alleging attempted March transfer; fy conspiracy. juvenile at a (3) jeopardy attach Does hearing was held on March A transfer hearing; transfer time the above facts were at which exist from a right of aDoes addition, a court service established. order; and transfer investigation worker testified about his erro- of the scene photograph aWas juvenile opinion the and offered his that the neously admitted. rehabilitation of likelihood of reasonable February juvenile was limited. early morning hours In the Lurz and Dan officers Herb police Following the transfer the court Fourche, Dakota, re- Belle South Rogers findings of fact and reasons for entered near gun shots reporting call a radio ceived in addition to a certificate trans- in Belle Fourche. Eighth and State Streets juvenile ferring the to adult court. call. Near responded to the officers The Eighth and State Streets intersection CONSTITUTIONALITY police vehi- fired at were several shots juvenile’s first The contention is that and windshield. light red cle, breaking the unconstitutionally vague 26-11-41 is in the vicini- saw no one officers police The process violative of the due clauses of the di- determine they could not ty Fourteenth Amendment of the United came. from which shots rection VI, 2, and Art. Constitution States m., a. and 1:00 Between 12:30 Dakota Constitution. South had left companions male and two asserts the statute fails Fourche, in Belle teenage party adequate criteria provide to or standards to carrying companions each one of his Later, in they guide determining returned to .22 caliber rifle. hard, pos- to transfer a breathing still whether adult party, provides: appear “The circuit court 1. SDCL and other material shall and be discretion, may, case of a delin- in its subject to direct and both cross-examination. child, permit hearing, such quent after finds “If the court that a child should be held against proceeded in accordance to be child proceedings proceeded against criminal or in force in this state with the laws governing municipal ordinance in a for violation of viola- of crimes or the commission competent jurisdiction, the court shall enter municipal In such cases ordinances. tion of the certifying to that effect. When an an order chapter petition 26-8 shall be filed under made, juris- has been order of certification hearing shall be conducted as dismissed. court as to the child diction provided. hereinafter terminated, except that the court concerned is hearing, the court shall con- “At the proceedings are to which require transferred contrary only whether it would be sider court to hold the child in public of the child or interest best retain pending proceedings in that detention jurisdiction over the child. finds “If the court that it is the best inter- relating reports materials “Written and other child and of for the court est of the mental, physical, and social histo- child’s jurisdiction, proceed it shall with the to retain court, ry be considered adjudicatory hearing.” prepared person persons or who

«67 Peo solely upon (i. e., relies protect court. The 26-11 juveniles from the Fields, 1972, 388 66, 199 Mich. ple punitive provisions of the criminal law and Michigan in which a similar statute provide for rehabilitation rather than pun- have been unconstitutionally held to ishment), provides the statute a sufficient vague.2 prevent standard to the exercise of ju- venile court’s discretion in an arbitrary, ca- “vagueness” argument rests pricious or discriminatory manner.4 theory either the there has been However, because a transfer hearing delegation legislative authority “ ‘critically important’ is a action determin inadequate prevent arbitrary standards ing vitally important statutory rights actions, administrative or discriminatory juvenile,” subject it is to the “constitutional vague person is so that a statute principles process due and the assist [of] reasonably cannot know what conduct ance of counsel.” Kent v. expects from him. Neither of these law 1966, 541, 1045, 16 383 86 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d any application 26- theories SDCL process 84. Those due requirements are 11-4. In a transfer the circuit required by South Dakota statutes as well acting capacity in its as the court is Kent. as an administrative agency. court and Neither does the statute 26-7-1. SDCL transfer, Before is enti conduct; any criminal in attempt to define hearing, tled to a time, and notice of the stead, judiciary’s it establishes the function place, purpose of the hearing must be legal determining proceedings to be given juvenile, parents, guardian processing of a for used in the or other custodian and attorneys. their of the laws of the state.3 certain violations States, supra; Kent v. United SDCL 26-8- Furthermore, 26-8-13, 11, 26-8-12, 26-8-13.1; when considered with the 26- SDCL SDCL, Chapters 26-7 —26-8 and 8-22.1 and petition intent SDCL 26-11-4. The for Fields, 1974, rehearing, People Cir., 1973, 334, 869, v. 391 2. On 473 F.2d cert. den. 414 U.S. 206, continuing 183, 216 N.W.2d 51. The Mich. 94 38 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. authority questionable of these cases is in view Michigan Supreme ruling in of the recent Court Peters, 4.People 1976, 360, v. 397 Mich. 244 Peters, 1976, 360, People Mich. 244 v. 397 898; Speck, 1976, N.W.2d State v. Iowa 242 898, disagree- express that “we our N.W.2d 287; Burtts, 1975, In re N.W.2d Welfare of 12 holding majority opinion with ment 564, 709; Wash.App. 530 P.2d Clemons v. agreement rehearing, with in Fields on and our State, Ind.App.1974, 859, 317 N.E.2d cert. den. reasoning dissenting Justice Levin 859, 113, 86; 96 S.Ct. 46 L.Ed.2d Da ** People v. the extent “[t]o State, Fla.App.1974, 289; vis 297 v. So.2d In re Fields, supra, supportive is not of our decision Bullard, 1974, 245, 305; N.C.App. 22 206 S.E.2d today, is 244 N.W.2d at 901- overruled.” Juvenile, 1974, 531, In re 822; 364 Mass. Salas, 1974, State In Interest of Utah 520 874; Lemon, 1974, 568, v. State 110 Ariz. require 3. Some violations do not a transfer 1000; F.R.W., 1973, 521 P.2d 61 Wis.2d all, example, hearing at for 26-8-7 and SDCL 130, 193, 974, 212 N.W.2d cert. den. 416 U.S. 94 expressly exclude “state or mu SDCL 563; Lujan L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 40 v. District nicipal hunting, fishing, boating or traffic laws District, 1973, of Fourth Judicial Court 161 and, by magistrate,” cognizable effective 896; State, Mont. Okl.Cr.1973, 505 P.2d Sherfield v. 1, 1977, offense(s)” “petty juris April from the 598; Scoville, 511 State v. Furthermore, diction 366; 113 N.H. 304 A.2d jurisdictions attorney, prosecuting some Jimenez, 1972, N.M. 84 503 P.2d judiciary, pro not the allowed to choose the Weidner, 1971, Or.App. 6 487 ceedings, adult in which a Williams, Mo.1971, 473 S.W.2d Ill.Rev.Stat., e., prosecuted, will be i. Ch. Lewis Nev. amended), 702-7(3) (subsequently in Correia, 1968, 104 R.I. 243 A.2d terpreted in United States ex rel. Bombacino v. Owens, 1966, Cir., 1974, State ex rel. Londerholm v. Bensinger, 7 498 F.2d Neb. R.S. (subsequently amended) Kan. ness, D.C.D.C.1965, United States v. interpreted Cavi 43-202 F.Supp. People Grayer, State 191 Neb. Shipp, (subsequently U.S.C.A. 5032 Cal.2d States, amended) interpreted in Cox v. United P.2d 577. Court; Juvenile provid- in advance and it must set forth the days served six pur- the nature and notice of for the order sufficient adequate specifici- basis with ed the record Although review.” Kent v. hearing. ty permit meaningful pose place States, the time and notice of not show at U.S. present and parties were hearing, all Here, court set forth in a six- adequate objection has been made no page of Facts and Reasons for “Statement given. was not notice summary Transfer” making the criteria used in presented, entitled to the effec transfer,5 and the reasons determination counsel, and, he is with if assistance tive under criteria. those means, must counsel financial sufficient out of Facts and Reasons “Statement Kent v. United by the court. appointed adequate Transfer” an basis for 26-8-13.1; 26- supra; SDCL review this court. hearing, 26-8-22.2. Prior 8-22.1 Mr. had retained parents juvenile’s find the We standard of SDCL 26- hear at the transfer Richards. adequate to to be meet attack 11-4 pro that he be requested ing the it is vague, that the unconstitutionally counsel, and Mr. Rich appointed vided applicable statutes heretofore cited are record reflects appointed. ards was héarings, procedures and that pro prepared adequately he hearing satisfy process at the the due used at the trans representation effective vided requirements. hearing. fer juvenile must be Counsel THE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY meaningful opportuni- access to and given Although we find 26-11^4 SDCL and social records ty to review a standard sufficient meet contains to reviewed, as submitted, or admitted reports challenges, constitutional the discretion of evidence, subjected “be they so juvenile court to transfer be * * * examination, criticism, refuta- to arbitrarily. To juvenile exercised assist the at Kent v. tion.” courts, Supreme United States Court 1058; see also 26-8- 563, SDCL 86 S.Ct. many other courts have approved or 30; Only investigative 26-11-4. adopted standards for the transfer of a worker was re- of the court service to adult court.6 evidence, had and received viewed of these standards re- An examination the hear- to counsel to furnished been (1) two basic areas of consideration: veals ing. crime, (2) of the the circumstances upon the It is incumbent amenability of the to treatment of certifica court, addition to the order juvenile system. within the Because 11—4,to ac required tion as SDCL 26— involved, separability of the evidence we rea of the company it “with a statement suggest the transfer consider * * * or considerations therefor. sons problems phases. in two to statement should be sufficient [T]he * * * question phase, In the first court should demonstrate consider evidence of the circumstances sur- received the careful consideration eight State, Okl.Cr.1973, 598; con- court used the criteria 5. The 511 P.2d State v. appendix the Kent decision. in the 664; tained Hogan, 297 Minn. 212 N.W.2d Yard, 1973, 109 Ariz. 507 P.2d State States, 1966, 383 U.S. v. United 6. Kent 123; Mikulovsky 54 Wis.2d 84; 16 L.Ed.2d In re Welfare Gibbs, 1972, Idaho Hernandez, 1976, Wash.App. Langlois, Knott v. Burtts, 1975, Welfare of 12 Wash. State, 1967, A.2d Summers v. R.I. Harbert, App. Ind. See Uniform Kemper, Wash.2d (U.L.A.) Juvenile, Act Juvenile Court Mo.App.1975, 535 S.W.2d 364 Mass. N.E.2d Sherfield alleged Initially, violation. rounding the amenable to the rehabilitative treatment must be a determination there available within the system. Fac- proceed- warrants further factual evidence which may tors be considered are: n is: ings, that (1) Age of juvenile. (1) merit. The court must be Prosecutive court should consider whether the remain- with evidence establishes presented ing jurisdiction time of its will be sufficient in the alleged peti- offense complete any program. rehabilitative committed and that there is has been tion (2) Physical and mental maturity. The cause to believe that court should consider juvenile’s home the offense.7 committed life, activities, school attitude, emotional de- alleged offense. Seriousness adult, sire be treated as pattern an Although the seriousness offense living, apparent emancipation, and other transfer, not warrant when con- alone relevant evidence juvenile’s maturi- criteria, may with be- sidered ty. making a trans- deciding factor come (3) Necessary treatment. fer.8 should take considerable care to determine (3) The manner or fashion which the type what of treatment or rehabilitative was committed. Evidence that the offense services are juvenile. best for the aggressively, was committed vio- offense (4) Rehabilitative services available. Af- lently, by dangerous deadly use of a or ter determining what treatment weapon, premeditation may be con- requires, the court should carefully ex- sidered. programs amine the juveniles available for (4) Subject of the offense. Great- and adults to determine where appro- given by the court weight er priate treatment can given. against persons, particularly where offenses history. Previous The court should injury has resulted. personal previous consider adjudica- convictions or for the commission of the (5) Motivation of delinquency tions and the nature of the offense. Evidence of an advance alleged offenses, evidence of other antisocial considered, scheme be as well plan behavior, prior contacts with law enforce- apparent the reasons for the commission ment agencies resulting not pro- court alleged offense. of ceedings, and the past results of rehabilita- Ages per- and circumstances of other tive efforts. alleged Al- involved offenses. sons public Threat to safety. The court though companions the existence of adult may consider evidence which would show considered, the pros- be convenience of that security juve- confinement and of the trial ecuting several defendants at one nile are necessary for the continuing protec- given undue weight. not be should of public tion and whether the available present If there has been evidence juvenile facilities provide sufficient establishing public proba a offense and ed security. juvenile ble cause to believe committed offense, should then hear evi These factors are not intended juvenile to determine whether the dence to be an exclusive With exception list. Anonymous, Murphy, Ariz.App. In re Md.App. 14 484 N.E.2d 15 States, J.F., v. United Green 291 A.2d 141 N.J.Su Lujan U.S.App.D.C. Leach v. Su per. 308 F.2d v. District Court 358 A.2d County Angeles, District, perior of Los Court for of Fourth Judicial 161 Mont. Cal.App.3d Maroney, 1971, Cir., Walker v. States ex rel. State, Okl.Cr.1976, State, v. D.G.B. Cartwright 444 F.2d Ind.App.12976, 94; Cartwright J.F., Ind.App.1976, N.J.Super. State, Ind.App.1976, Imel v. N.E.2d A.2d 217. need merit, the factors presented all of evidence this prosecutive place. may take evi exist before failed to show not reasons its of the premeditated design statement of a to affect dence state transfer, juvenile court should necessary the death human for the for evidence supporting and the offense of attempted murder.10 factors transfer. to basis of its decision conspiracy are the was no that There evidence of a to the court factors used Any little, additional any, if evidence commit stated, supporting as the be as well juvenile should connected the with the re- evidence, “meaningful allow to for shooting.11 required Kent. review” Finally, presented to show review, must be substan was there that the not amenable to

On support evidence in to solely tial the record nile treatment came from the testi- it would finding mony court’s the court service His in- worker. child or contrary vestigation to the best interests consisted of a brief interview over the jurisdiction to juvenile, securing retain school records preparing child.9 written to the court. the court Although allowed the court serv- reviewing findings of fact express opinion worker to ice on all of case, appears this for transfer in reasons concerning possibilities criteria to transfer court’s decision rehabilitation this nowhere evidence. based substantial not appear he had sufficient infor- expressly de about the mation or of the rehabili- “probable find there clined alternatives to express opin- tative those commit to believe that the cause” ions. state the crime. The reluctance ted Particularly illuminating was the court the crime and present evidence of worker’s response question service to a attempts to finding apparent were court’s the treatment about and rehabilitative fa- jeopardy. any question of double avoid “Well, necessary cilities juvenile; I Jones, Breed if I don’t know could adequately answer interpret 44 L.Ed.2d 346. We do present at the time without doing a precluding v. Jones as a determina Breed thorough background boy.” real it is the cause. Because tion function, prosecuting and not the court’s A transfer adult court is a critical “prosecutive attorney’s, stage determine in criminal proceedings. deprives It allegations, there must of the protection merit” and rehabili- presented to warrant a evidence sufficient tation of system and sub- finding “probable of cause.” ject lengthy him to incarceration with Harbert, 1975, evincing depraved mind, 9. In re 85 Wash.2d regardless ers and of Patterson, 1972, re 210 Kan. In life, although any premeditated human without State, Okl.Cr.1976, 1131; Calhoon P.2d design any particular to effect the death of Gibbs, 1972, 94 Idaho P.2d individual.” Stevenson, In Mont. re Superior Angeles L. v. Court of Los hearing 11.A transfer was held on the same County, 7 Cal.3d day, judge, juve- before the same for another State, 1970, 1098; Lewis 86 Nev. charged same offenses. find- The 168. ings prior preparation of fact were made transcript appears in the of and that evidence attempted allegation un- murder was The of hearing inadvertently in- have been 22-16^4, provides: “Homicide der SDCL which findings cluded in this matter. authority perpetrated when without is murder the fact that evidence of cause premeditated design with a to effect of law proceedings presented in have been other person killed or of the death duty present 22-16-7, the state its not relieve being,” human provides: and not SDCL hearing juve- perpe- transfer for this when evidence in the “Homicide imminently dangerous by any to oth- act trated nile. Therefore, prison. adults in adjudicatory hearing on the delinquency pe- require must a more substantial in- tition. The finding of probable cause at the vestigation and more evidence of the reha- transfer hearing does not require proof “be- prospects bilitative than were submitted at yond a reasonable doubt” required as is hearing.12 this transfer adjudication an of delinquency. SDCL 26-

8-22.5. The Breed v. Jones decision ex- pressly JEOPARDY approved DOUBLE of such procedure. “We note that nothing decided today presented The para- a rather forecloses States from requiring, pre- as a argument. Initially, doxial he asserts that requisite to the transfer of there must be sufficient evidence to show substantial evidence that he committed cause” “probable commission of the charged, offense so long as the show- argues offense. Then he that if evidence of ing required is not made adjudicato- in an introduced, the offense is jeopardy attaches ry proceeding.” Footnote 421 U.S. at and he cannot be tried in adult court with- 538, 95 S.Ct. at 1790. a violation of the Fifth out Amendment against prohibition jeopardy. double The finding “prosecutive merit” at the transfer hearing is similar to a find solely upon relies Breed v. ing of “sufficient cause” in a preliminary Jones, supra; however, interpretation his hearing in adult court. SDCL 23-27-16. Breed, that case is inaccurate. as pro- be seriously It cannot contended that jeop law, by vided California hear- ardy attaches at a preliminary hearing in ing adjudicatory hearing. followed the adult proceedings, nor can it be contended adjudication delinquency was made that jeopardy attaches at a hearing proof beyond reasonable doubt. court. Winship, 90 S.Ct. possible disposi- 25 L.Ed.2d 368. One of the RIGHT OF APPEAL tions available to the California Court was to adult proceed- In such also contends that an appeal ings, Supreme Court held that the from a transfer order is a matter right placed nile had been in jeopardy by the 15-26-1(2) under SDCL (4).13 He insti- adjudication delinquency, require and to appeal sections; tuted under those how- ever, him to stand trial in criminal proceedings appeal was allowed as a discre- have violated Fifth Amendment. tionary from an intermediate order under 15-26-1(6). SDCL inapplicable

Breed is to the transfer hear- ing procedure under our statutes. SDCL Although there are several court deci- 26-8-22.7 26-11-4 require SDCL sions which conclude that a transfer order the transfer appealable held before the as a matter of right,14 it does investigation judicial discretion, The evidence and in this case of sound and to be allowed substantially by are than Supreme less that held to be insuf- Court in the manner Gibbs, Stevenson, ficient only rules of such court when the court Patterson, supra, in note 9. justice considers that the ends of will be served questions determination of the involved provides: “Appeals awaiting without the final determination of the Supreme may Court from the circuit court be proceeding.” action or * * * provided taken as in this title from affecting right, An order a substantial Minn.1976, made I.Q.S., 14.In re Welfare 244 action, any in when 30; Doe, such 1974, order in effect 37, deter- In N.W.2d re 86 N.M. 519 prevents judgment 133; mines the action State, a Aye 1973, from 32, Md.App. v. 17 * * * appeal might which an Any 513; State, be Alaska, taken 1972, A.2d H. 299 P. v. 504 affecting right, 837; final order a substantial Tex.Civ.App.1969, Dillard v. special proceedings, in made ry application a 1971, summa- Ridge, 439 S.W.2d v. Graham judgment in an 387, I, action after 1968, 489 P.2d Ariz. Doe * * * (6) Any 537, Houston, intermediate order 1968, In Haw. re trial, any appeal made 528, before under this Templeton subdi- 428 S.W.2d 221 Tenn. v. vision, however, being right not a State, 1968, matter of but 202 Kan. 447 P.2d State v. that unnecessary. citations are It “meaningful review” well that appear not v. su- that our find the legislature Kent United consid- contemplated by Jones, supra, allowing appeals mandates direct per- Breed v. erations for pra, fact, both Breed by Kent and them enough grant result. suasive statute. such a following conviction appeals involved time, appears such that this Until court criminal proceedings. in adult prevent arbitrary, capricious or can discrim- system court to unification Prior inatory by transfers the use of discretionary jurisdiction to transfer of and the appeals, as we have in intermediate courts, a transfer from order circuit so, By doing case. the attendant delays county court would have been district then appeals would occur for from every which circuit under SDCL appealable transfer will be avoided. State, 1971, Runge v. 86 S.D. 26-8-58. that statute OF ADMISSIBILITY EVIDENCE (see unification Ch. superseded by objects juvenile further .130, S.L.1973, 14), S.L.1973, § 2 and Ch. photograph introduction of a not that legislature has and the only objection His is crime scene. that appealable orders would pen markings on it that were had not right. matter placed objections on it witnesses.16 His strong argument can be Although a markings are without merit. were not right granting the need made for any in manner and their prejudicial pres order, we a transfer from appeal a direct explained adequately ence which have de decisions agree with those The case reversed remanded under similar appeals as statutes such nied proceedings consistent with further this de- Jiles, language People in to ours.15 cision. appro I11.2d 251 N.E.2d 529 is priate: COLER, JJ., concur. interlocutory of WINANS review permit

“To obviously delay an order such WOLLMAN, J., part concurs in and dis- proceeding in either prosecution part. in sents division, with or the criminal prospect just result DUNN, J.,C. dissents. jeopardized. In ei- would be disposition WOLLMAN, (concurring part, Justice in is the primary issue proceeding ther dissenting part). guilt of of the innocence or ascertainment permit To interlocu- charged. person agree I that SDCL is not uncon- pri- would subordinate tory review stitutionally vague; jeopardy does not defer its mary issue and consideration at a hearing; attach ap- punishment question while admitting not err in the pho- did suspect guilt whose has propriate for scene; tograph of and that an appeal litigated being ascertained is yet been not be from a taken transfer order aas reviewing courts.” however, of right. agree, matter I do not is insufficient statutory justify right of That Dakota well established South transfer. been so Croft, Yoss, 1967, App.2d 10 Ohio S.W.2d Commonwealth Little, 1965, 241 Or. State 285 A.2d Pa. U.S. W.Va.1973, den. McArdle, cert. 194 S.E.2d Briggs, 245 Or. L.Ed.2d pen markings X and an 16. The were an withO HL, placed had been the initials on the Cal.App.2d People,

15. Brekke v. exhibit Jiles, 1969, People Ill.2d 1972, witness, Lurz. Herb H., re T. N.E.2d In J. Mo. a state did not introduce allegations that the truth of the Granted placed and was on evidence to establish quantity of great probation. Granted the court service the al- linking appellant to cause investigation not worker’s was as compre- violation, that the evidence leged I believe thorough might hensive and been, have support finding a the record not be this should a reason for reversing the merit. One charge prosecutive conclude, order if we can as I think appellant testified that witnesses state’s here, that we can the trial court had suffi- left two rifles and two others took and cient information from which could deter- a. m. on the date 1:00 and 1:30 between it would contrary mine that to the best leaving, ap- Prior to alleged offense. appellant interests or of the and said one rifles had loaded pellant jurisdiction appellant. retain over If by “ * * * shoot going were he and the others substantial evidence mean we day, 2:15 a. m. that around town. At about and competent such relevant evidence as a responded police officers to a two accept mind might reasonable as being suf- being apartment shots were fired at an ficiently adequate to a support conclusion their * * Upon arriving the scene in house. 1-26-1(8), then I am sat- car, were fired the officers patrol isfied that transfer order was not erro- Five or six bullets assailants. unknown entered. neously car. passed through police or hit the either testified felt of the officers that he One DUNN, Chief (dissenting). Justice times head two or three something pass his something then hit his head. felt agree I would that the transfer statute is lead. by flying officer struck was constitutionally vague. I not would also point later at a Spent cartridges were found that an agree from transfer hear- squad 25 to 45 from where the feet some ing right. should not be a matter How- When upon. was when it was fired car ever, should be within the dis- which to the house from appellant returned the trial judge considering cretion of after rifle, carrying he was had left with the he crime, circumstances “ * * * breathing .22 rifle and amenability to treat- Although running.” like he had been hard juvenile system. ment within I would pinpoint was unable to state’s witness judge tie trial with not down twelve with appellant returned time at which different factors that he has to consider in rifle, I it was draw is that inference cumbersome, each transfer case. It too hours. early morning during somewhere prone,” too “error and does not leave much whole, evidence is sufficient as a Taken Further, to the court’s discretion. I would merit prosecutive establish the the findings hold that charge against appellant. satisfy any are sufficient to this case rea- against weighing After standards for a transfer hearing. sonable considered factors should I affirm. determining court in whether a trial treat- amenable rehabilitative I system, available within ment err trial court satisfied that the did

am Appellant transferring appellant. age on the date years 2 months offense; out of dropped he had employ- of 1975 to seek in December

school friend gotten girl after he had

ment is bad. school record Appellant’s

pregnant. charged he was August of 1974 having and with

driving while intoxicated he admitted permit; valid drivers

no

Case Details

Case Name: People in Interest of LVA

Court Name: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 16, 1976

Citation: 248 N.W.2d 864

Docket Number: 11938

Court Abbreviation: S.D.