State v. T.D.R.State v. T.D.R.
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Mitchell
MITCHELL, Chief Justice.
By juvenile petitions filed 22 August 1996, defendant, then fifteen years old, was alleged to be delinquent by reason of his having committed first-degree rape and first-degree burglary. A hearing was held pursuant to
On 16 December 1996, defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Durham County for first-degree rape and first-degree burglary. Subsequently, on 21 January 1997, defendant was indicted for first-degree kidnapping.
On 15 January 1997, defendant filed a motion in Superior Court, Durham County, to dismiss the indictments against him and to remand jurisdiction of his case to the Juvenile District Court. On 24 January 1997, a hearing on defendant‘s motion to dismiss was held in the Superior Court, Durham County, before the Honorable David Q. LaBarre. On 29 January 1997, defendant filed an amended motion to dismiss. On 7 February 1997, the Superior Court entered an order making findings and concluding inter alia that “[t]he District Court ... [had] denied the Juvenile-Defendant Due Process of law and fundamental fairness by its refusal to hear or consider the juvenile‘s evidence with regard to the appropriateness of retaining jurisdiction in the District Court Division.” The order went on to vacate and dismiss the indictments against defendant and to remand jurisdiction to the District Court for a new hearing аs to whether the District Court should retain jurisdiction or transfer jurisdiction over the juvenile to the Superior Court.
On 10 February 1997, the State filed a petition in the Superior Court, Durham County, for a temporary stay of its 7 February 1997 order. On 13 February 1997, the State filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. On 19 February 1997, the State filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for writ of supersedeas and motion for temporary stay. A temporary stay was entered by the Court of Appeals on 27 February 1997. On 28 February 1997, the Superior Court entered an order concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because of the filing of the notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals and denying the State‘s motion for reconsideratiоn.
On 10 March 1997, the State filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On 26 March 1997, the Court of Appeals entered an order as follows:
Because orders of the district court transferring the jurisdiction over a juvenile to superior court pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-608 (1995) are subject to review only by [the Court of Appeals] after entry of a final judgment by the superior court, the superior court is without authority to review transfer orders. The order entered 7 February 1997 by Judge David Q. LaBarre, reviewing the district court‘s order transferring jurisdiction over the juvenile to the superior court, is hereby vacated. The matter is remanded to Superior Court, Durham County, for reinstatement of the indictments dismissed in that order and for further proceеdings.
(Citation omitted.)
Defendant filed a notice of appeal of right with this Court asserting that this case directly involves a substantial constitutional question. His petition for discretionary review
Defendant contends on this appeal that the Superior Court had authority under
Defendant expressly based his motion in the Superior Court to dismiss the criminal charges against him upon the authority of
Although the Court of Appeals followed its own precedents, it erred in holding that it is only after the entry of a final judgment by the Superior Court in a criminal case against a juvenile that the juvenile may appeal the earlier order of the District Court transferring jurisdiction. We conclude that
Upon motion of a proper party as defined in
G.S. 7A-667 , review of any final order of the court in a juvenile matter under this Article shall be before the Court of Appeals.... A final order shall include:....
(2) Any order which in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which appeal might be taken[.]
That part of the order of the Court of Appeals concluding that appellate jurisdiction to directly review juvenile transfers lies only with the Court of Appeals was correct. However, we find no authority for the Court of Appeals’ conclusion in its order that juvenile transfer petitions entered by the District Court pursuant to
We next turn to the issue raised on appeal by defendant, which was before the Court of Appeals but was not addressed in its order in the present cаse. The juvenile defendant argues that the Superior Court had the authority under
By another argument, defendant contends that the Superior Court‘s order vacating the indictments against him and remanding his case to District Court was correct. He contends that this is so because the District Court violated his rights to due process of law and to the law of the land by transferring jurisdiction over him to the Superior Court without grаnting him an opportunity to present evidence. The Court of Appeals appears to have vacated the order of the Superior Court on the mistaken assumption that the Superior Court had conducted direct appellate review of the District Court‘s transfer order. Instead, we conclude that the Superior Court conducted an appropriate review of the proceedings in District Court that ultimately resulted in the indictments against defendant, which review was authorized by
The procedure for finding probable cause and transferring a juvenile to Superior Court for trial as an adult is governed by three provisions of the Juvenile Code.
The court after notice, hearing, and a finding of probable cause may transfer jurisdiction over a juvenile to superior court if the juvenile was 13 years of age or older at the time the juvenilе allegedly committed an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult. If the alleged felony constitutes a Class A felony and the court finds probable cause, the court shall transfer the case to the superior court for trial as in the case of adults.
Further,
Although the State argues that the rights accorded a juvenile by
Additionally, to hold that a juvenile did not have the right to a hearing and to produce evidence in his own behalf on the issue of transfer of jurisdiction to the Superior Court for his trial as an adult would unnecessarily raise substantial questions as to the constitutionality of our procedures for conducting the transfer hearing contemplated by the statutes under consideration here. See Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528-29, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 1784-85, 44 L.Ed.2d 346, 355 (1975) (noting that thе Supreme Court‘s response to the gap between the originally benign conception of the juvenile court system and its realities “has been to make applicable in juvenile proceedings constitutional guarantees associated with traditional criminal prosecutions“); see also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). Where one of two reasonable constructions of a statute will raise a serious constitutional question, it is well settled that our courts should adopt the construction that avoids the constitutional question. In re Arthur, 291 N.C. 640, 642, 231 S.E.2d 614, 616 (1977); In re Appeal of Arcadia Dairy Farms, Inc., 289 N.C. 456, 465-66, 223 S.E.2d 323, 328-29 (1976); cf. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 557, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1055, 16 L.Ed.2d 84, 95 (1966) (statutory construction “in the context of constitutional principles relating to due process and the assistance of counsel“). Accordingly, we conclude that when read in pari materia,
We next turn to the application of the foregoing principles to the facts presented by the record in this case. In the present case, the juvenile petitions were filed against the juvenile defendant, T.D.R., on 22 August 1996. Thereafter, continuances resulting from no fault on the part of the juvenile or the State prevented the holding of the probable cause hearing required by
Counsel for defendant renewed defendant‘s motion for a continuance to be allowed to gather evidence to present at a later time as to whether the District Court should retain jurisdiction. The district attorney then cаlled Carolyn Cordasco, a coordinator of the Adolescent Sex Offender Program for Durham County Mental Health. She testified that she had worked exclusively with adolescent sex offenders for three years. She further testified:
I‘ve spent approximately twelve years with sex offenders and I spent five years in the prison system in Kansas, starting sex offender programs and working there, and then five years here in North Carolina. And I started the adult sex offender program and then went to Central Prison for the last couple of years to work with violent offenders and rapists in a combination program.
[DISTRICT ATTORNEY:] Okay. So you would say over the last twelve years this has been your specialty?
[MS. CORDASCO:] Absolutely.
The district attorney then asked if Ms. Cordasco hаd heard the evidence presented at the hearing concerning the factual basis of the charges against the juvenile defendant. She indicated that she had. The following colloquy then occurred between the district attorney and the witness:
[DISTRICT ATTORNEY:] And in the consideration, this juvenile was fifteen years old. What would your opinion or could you give one—do you have enough information to give an opinion regarding the nature of this act and the feasibility of this juvenile being treated as a juvenile or by the nature of this act, in your opinion, do you believe he would—is a threat to the community and should be transferred as an adult and treated as an adult? If you can answer that.
[MS. CORDASCO:] I listened to the facts that the detective prеsented and based on my experience, working with both adults and juveniles and working in North Carolina‘s juvenile and adult system, it‘s, you know, my opinion that this young man committed a very sophisticated sexual crime based on the use of a weapon. It was obviously planned. I mean, he had a bandana. He was out there. He also interjected putting his arm around her neck, which at any time, I don‘t know if he actually cut her air off, but that certainly is very frightening because the victim would not know would he [sic] do that. And then putting her in a closet—in a dark closet. All these things are very, very sophisticated for someone so young.
In the juvenile system they do not have the capacity to treat this serious an offense. The adult system does. Unfortunately he would go into the youth system first and he would have to wait until he was twenty-two to get sex offender treatment. However, I do think the crime, in and of itself, puts him at extremely high risk to re-offend. There‘s usually a time thing. He apparently, from what I hear, has done fairly good in the community. But I think he‘s a very high risk for re-offending and I don‘t think the juvenile system—not my program, nor the one at Dillon or at Swannanoa—would be equipped to handle this serious of a crime.
He also needs some time within—away from the community, within the system, to be seasoned enough to even be amenable to this kind of treatment.
Counsel for defendant then cross-examined the witness. During cross-examination, Ms. Cordasco testified that based on her twelve years’ experience working with men who rape, such men were usually given standard psychological tests to reveal depression or psychosis, but that she did not know of any test that would assist in predicting the possibility
Counsel for defendant offered no evidence at the conclusion of the evidence for the State. The District Court then ruled as follows:
On what I‘ve already heard, I have to consider that if T.D.R. were to remain in the Juvenile Court jurisdiction and [be] sent to C.A. Dillon or some other training school, I believe that at age eighteen he would be released, whether he had improved or he had not improved, whether he had been treated or not.
And with the—just with the еvidence that I have now, I feel that we have been about as thorough and lenient as we can be on him. I‘m going to have him transferred to Superior Court.
The District Court denied the motion and entered an order finding probable cause and transferring jurisdiction over the juvenile defendant to the Superior Court and giving the reasons for the transfer. In its order, the District Court stated that the needs of the juvenile, or the best interests of the State, or both, would be served by transfer of the case to Superior Court. The order also stated as reasons for the transfer that
[t]he attorney for the juvenile waived probable cause after having received laboratory results which the juvenile‘s attorney had processed. The Court finds that juvenile services would not be adequate to rehabilitate the juvenile and/or protect the community. The fact that this juvenile would automatically be released from Division of Youth Services at age 18 weighs heavily on the Court & would be inappropriate in this case to retain at the juvenile level.
Thereafter, the grand jury of Durham County indicted defendant for the crimes charged. The juvenile defendant then moved under
In one of its conclusions of law in support of its order, the Superior Court concluded that “[t]he District Court in this case denied the Juvenile-Defendant Due Process of law and fundamental fairness by its refusal to hear or consider the juvenile‘s evidence with regard to the appropriateness of retaining jurisdiction in the District Court Division.” This conclusion by the Superior Court does not find support either in the Superior Court‘s findings of fact or in the transcript of the hearing held by the District Court on the issue of transfer. The only finding by the Superior Court related to this issue was that the juvenile defendant had been denied the opportunity to present evidence contradicting the expert testimony of the State‘s witness, Ms. Cordasco. Specifically, the Superior Court found that “[c]ounsel was denied an opportunity to do so by [the denial of] a two-week continuance.” This finding was in response to the only argument made by defendant before the Superior Court and before this Court as to why his constitutional rights were violated.
Defendant did not contend before the Superior Court, and does not argue before this Court, that the District Court refused to hear or consider any evidence he sought to introduce. The transcript of the District Court hearing does not reflect that defendant was ever prevented from introducing evidence. Instead, the transcript reveals that at each point at which defendant could have offered any evidence he had on the issue of transfer, defendant, through counsel, renewed his motion for a continuance to gather such evidence. The argument defendant made before the Superior Court and here is that the District Court‘s order violated his constitutional rights by denying his motion for a continuance of the hearing to gather evidence.
Whether to allow or deny a motion to continue any legal proceeding is a matter ordinarily addressed to the sound discretion
For clarity, we reemphasize that a motion for continuance is ordinarily addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In such cases, the trial court‘s ruling will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly unsupported by reason, which is to say it is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. Id.; State v. Wooten, 344 N.C. 316, 337, 474 S.E.2d 360, 372 (1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1270, 137 L.Ed.2d 348 (1997); State v. Mutakbbic, 317 N.C. 264, 273, 345 S.E.2d 154, 158 (1986). However, if the motion to continue is based on a constitutional right, the trial court‘s ruling thereon presents a question of law that is fully reviewable on appeal. Jones, 342 N.C. at 530, 467 S.E.2d at 17; State v. Smith, 310 N.C. 108, 112, 310 S.E.2d 320, 323 (1984). Here, defendant has argued, as he argued in the Superior Court, that the District Court‘s denial of his motion for a continuance to gather evidence on the issue of whether jurisdiction over him should have been transferred to the Superior Court denied him the constitutional right of presenting evidence on his own behalf.
Defendant contends that the denial of his motion for a continuance preventеd his introducing evidence in his own behalf because he simply did not have adequate time to gather such evidence. The record indicates that defendant gave no reason at the hearing before the District Court as to why the time he had been allowed to gather evidence and prepare for its presentation had not been sufficient. The record indicates that defendant was on notice of the allegations against him from the date of the filing of the juvenile petitions on 22 August 1996. The holding of a probable cause hearing was delayed in part because of the District Court‘s accommodation of defendant‘s request that his own experts be permitted to conduct DNA testing on the State‘s evidence prior to a determination of probable cause. The State relinquished custody of its as-yet-unanalyzed evidence for such testing by defendant‘s experts in response to a court order. A probable cause hearing was set for 18 November 1996. On 4 November 1996, defendant moved for a continuance of that hearing. The District Court granted his motion and continued the probable cause hearing until 3 December 1996.
Defendant made no further motion for a continuance until after he had appeared at the 3 December 1996 hearing and stipulated that probable cause existed. His motion to continue was made orally at that time. Defendant offered no explanation as to why the morе than three months from 22 August 1996 until 3 December 1996 had not been a sufficient time for him to secure any necessary evidence. Further, defendant submitted no affidavits to the District Court indicating any fact that might be proved by any witness if the continuance were granted.
Defendant further argues that the District Court erred in denying a continuance because he did not have notice that the issue of transfer of jurisdiction to Superior Court would bе considered at the probable cause hearing. We disagree. The applicable statutes themselves give notice that upon a finding of probable cause, either the juvenile or the prosecutor may make a motion for transfer of jurisdiction to the Superior Court and that the District Court may immediately proceed to a ruling on such motion.
Your Honor, I know you‘ve made your ruling on this and I would ask you to reconsider for this one reason. Ms. Cordasco testified that one of the things they look for when they have people coming to their program is an MMPI and some of the same testing that he‘s going through right now. We don‘t have—we‘ve not had an opportunity to present any evidence to show whether or not there is anything in the juvеnile system that could help him and we would have recommendations from our forensic psychologist that could tell the Court and give the Court more of a basis in which whether or not this thing should be transferred to adult court.
We understand this is a serious crime and we understand we have waived probable cause and that‘s one of the things we took a chance on when we waived it ....
(Emphasis added.) This argument by defendant is without merit.
The Superior Court also based its order vacating the indictments against defendant and purporting to remand jurisdiction to the District Court upon another ground. The Superior Court concluded as a matter of law that the District Court order transferring jurisdiction “was not supported by competent evidence” to the extent that it was based upon the reason that there was “a lack of rehabilitative services for this juvenile in the Juvenile Court Division.” This conclusion by the Superior Court is not supported by the transcript of the District Court hearing or by any other document that was before the Superior Court. Instead, it seems that the Superior Court‘s conclusion was based on its disagreement with the testimony of the State‘s expert and with the District Court‘s
The State‘s expert, Ms. Cordasco, testified in detail as to her lengthy experience and qualifications. Defendant never objected to her testimony and never requested that the court mаke any findings of fact. Cf. State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129, 322 S.E.2d 370 (1984) (trial court did not err in permitting witness to testify as an expert without making findings of fact as to her qualifications where defendant did not specifically request that the court make such findings). In the absence of a request by defendant for the trial court to make a finding concerning the qualifications of a witness as an expert, it is not necessary that the record show an express finding on this issue—the finding being deemed implicit in the ruling admitting or rejecting the opinion testimony of the witness. State v. Perry, 275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E.2d 839 (1969). This is particularly true where, as here, there is ample evidence to support a finding that the witness is an expert or where, as here, defendant does not object to the witness’ being found to be an expert. State v. Mitchell, 283 N.C. 462, 196 S.E.2d 736 (1973) (evidence to support a finding that the witness was an expert); Perry, 275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E.2d 839 (no objection to witness’ being treated as an expert). Where, as here, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the witness was an expert, it is presumed that the court found the witness to be an expert before admitting the testimony, notwithstanding the absence of a specific finding to this effect. Olan Mills, Inc. v. Cannon Aircraft Executive Terminal, Inc., 273 N.C. 519, 160 S.E.2d 735 (1968). Therefore, the Superior Court erred in its findings and conclusion to the effect that there was no competent expert evidence before the District Court on the issue of the availability of rehabilitative services for defendant as a juvenile and that the order of the District Court must be vacated for that reason.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Superior Court vacating and dismissing the indictments against defendant and purporting to remand jurisdiction to the District Court was in error and must be reversed. However, the order of the Court of Appeals did not reverse the order of the Superior Court. Instead, the Court of Appeals, proceeding on the mistaken assumption that the Superior Court acted without jurisdiction, vacated the order of the Superior Court. The Court of Appeals erred in vacating the order of the Superior Court rather than reversing that order.
As previously explained in this opinion, once the District Court has transferred jurisdiction over a juvenile to the Superior Court, the Superior Court hаs complete jurisdiction, including jurisdiction and authority to hear and dispose of motions to dismiss the charges stated in the criminal pleadings against the defendant in the Superior Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Court of Appeals vacating the order of the Superior Court is reversed. The order of the Superior Court vacating and dismissing the indictments against defendant and purporting to remand jurisdiction over the juvenile defendant to the District Court is also reversed. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for its further remand to the Superior Court, Durham County, for reinstatement of the indictments against defendant and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS: REVERSED;
ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT: REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR REINSTATEMENT OF I