State v. WhitemanState v. Whiteman
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Morris
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Dеfendant Vince Whiteman (Whiteman), a minor, appeals from the decision of the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Big Horn County, to allow prosecution of his case in district court. Whiteman raises the sole issue of whether the District Court erred when it determined, based upon the brutal nature of the offense and the best interests of the community and of Whiteman, that Whiteman should stand trial in District Court. We affirm.
¶2 At the outset, we note Whiteman appears to have abandoned his claim that the statute permitting the District Court to transfer a case back tо the Youth Court,
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶3 The State alleges that on February 6, 2004, Whiteman, using a baseball bat, beat and killed Wayne Not Afraid (Not Afraid) and severely injured Floyd Grant (Grant). Whiteman was thirteen years old at the time of the beatings. Earlier that day, Whiteman and two other males, Dietrich Shoulderblade (Shoulderblade), and John Knows His Gun (Knows His Gun), had engaged in a verbal confrontation with Not Afraid and Grant. Cheranda Not Afraid, decedent Not Afraid’s niece, told police that shortly after her grandmother diffused the verbal confrontation, she overheard Whiteman, Shoulderblade and Knows His Gun discussing a plan to assault Not Afraid and Grant. They devised a plan to have Knows His Gun lure the two men out of their trailer where Whiteman and Shoulderblade would attack them with a bat. Although Cheranda did not witness the attack, she told police she saw Whiteman poised with a bat outside her uncle’s trailer shortly before the assault.
¶4 In subsequent interviews with police, Knows His Gun admitted the males had conceived of the plan to ambush Not Afraid and Grant and that upon confronting the two men, Whiteman had struck Not Afraid and Grant each in the head with a baseball bat. Knows His Gun stated he did not see Whiteman’s first blow to Grant, but asserted he heard it and saw Grant falling backwards without making any effort to catch himself. He also claimed Not Afraid then rushed towards Whiteman at which time Whiteman struck Not Afraid with the baseball bat, knocking him to the ground. Once Not Afraid was оn the ground, Whiteman returned to Grant and inflicted more blows to his head with the baseball bat. Grant appeared to be unconscious as he made no effort to protect himself. Whiteman then returned to Not Afraid and hit him in the head several more times with the bat.
¶5 The blood spatter found at the crime scene by the police and the physical appearance of Not Afraid and Grant proved consistent with Knows His Gun’s report. The police also recovered a pair of bloody pants from Whiteman’s trailer and a wooden bat covered with a large amount of blood.
¶6 On February 18,2004, the State filed a motion in Youth Court for leave to file a Petition of Delinquency against Whiteman. The motion alleged Whiteman had committed acts that, if he were an adult, would have constituted the offensеs of deliberate homicide and aggravated assault. The Youth Court granted the State leave to file a petition for *361 delinquency and the State filed it on February 19, 2004.
¶7 The next day, February 20,2004, the State filed in District Court a notice of its intent, pursuant to
¶8 Whiteman filed a separate motion in District Court on June 11, 2004, requesting the court declare the transfer statute,
¶9 Whiteman filed a brief in support of his position that the case should be tried in Youth Court on June 24, 2004. The next day, the District Court conducted a hearing pursuant to
¶10 This Court reviews a district court’s decision for an abuse of discrеtion regarding whether a juvenile should be prosecuted in youth court or district court. State v. Spina, 1999 MT 113, ¶ 12, 294 Mont. 367, ¶ 12, 982 P.2d 421, ¶ 12 (citingMatter of J.K.C. (1995), 270 Mont. 342, 344, 891 P.2d 1169, 1171). ‘With regard to specific findings of fact relied on by the [district] court in transferring the case, the standard of review is whether such findings are clearly erroneous.” Spina, ¶ 12 (citing Matter of J.D.W. (1994), 267 Mont. 87, 91, 881 P.2d 1324, 1327). A finding is clearly erroneous if it is not suрported by substantial evidence, if the district court misapprehended the effect of evidence, or if our review of the record convinces us that the district court made a mistake. Spina, ¶ 12 (citations omitted). We review a district court’s conclusions of law to determine whether its conclusions are correct. Spina, ¶ 12.
¶11 The State may file a motion for leave to file an information
*362
directly in district court under certain circumstances. These circumstances include a situation in which the youth is twelve or more years of age, the alleged criminal conduct falls within a specified category of offenses, including deliberate homicide as defined in
(a) a youth court proceeding and disposition will serve the interests of community рrotection;
(b) that the nature of the offense does not warrant prosecution in district court; and
(c) it would be in the best interest of the youth if the matter was prosecuted in youth court.
¶12 As a preliminary matter, Whiteman asserts that the District Court, in considering these factors, сontemplated only selective factual allegations, proposed by the State and adopted verbatim by the court, that falsely portray the nature of the alleged incident. We need not address Whiteman’s supposition that the District Court’s findings are clearly erroneous as a result of their “verbatim” adoption. We conclude the District Court made comprehensive findings of fact that intimately detailed the testimony offered at trial. “Findings and conclusions that are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues tо provide a basis for decision and are supported by evidence will not be overturned simply because the trial court relied on proposed findings and conclusions submitted by counsel.” Steve v. Smith (1993), 261 Mont. 419, 439, 863 P.2d 1000, 1012 (citation omitted).
¶13 We will address, however, Whiteman’s specific allegations of clear error in the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as they relate to the transfer statute. Whiteman first claims the District Court erred in determining that the nature of his offense warranted prosecution in district court.
See
¶14 We conclude that substantial credible evidence supports the
*363
findings that probable cause existed for the charge of deliberatе homicide and thus prosecution in district court.
See
¶15 As this Court has recognized, “[i]t is within the domain of the trial court to resolve conflicts in the evidence based on its assessment of the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses before it, and this Court will nоt resolve conflicts on appeal.” Spina, ¶ 24 (citing Matter of T.N. (1994), 267 Mont. 81, 85, 881 P.2d 1329, 1332). Therefore, we conclude, based on the evidence presented at the transfer hearing, the District Court did not err when it determined the testimony of Detectives Dalton and Bahm supplied probable cause that Whiteman committed the offense and that the nature of the offense warranted prosecution in district court.
¶16 Whiteman, pointing to
¶17 We conclude once again that sufficient evidence supports the District Court’s findings that a youth court prоceeding and disposition would not serve the interests of the community or promote Whiteman’s *364 rehabilitation. The District Court received testimony at trial from both parties concerning the interests of the community and of Whiteman. Between the testimony presented, including three of Whiteman’s teachers, a psychologist, and two officers from the Department of Corrections, the court found more substantive the testimony of Officer Pamela Bunke, an administrator for the Department of Corrections, and Officer Jack Lane, a prоbation officer. Officers Bunke and Lane both testified to the limited resources available to the youth court in handling young violent offenders like Whiteman as well as the continuity to which Whiteman’s case would receive in the adult system. Further, both Officers Bunke and Lane testified thаt Whiteman’s rehabilitation would be better suited to the adult system.
¶ 18 The District Court determined that youth court proceedings would limit the dispositional options to juvenile correctional or treatment facilities and only for the limited time frame of the youth court’s jurisdiction. “Such limitаtions,” the court reasoned, “do not serve the interest of the community protection as does the more extensive sentencing options available to the district court through the adult system.” The court also concluded, “[n]o one reasonably disputes that it is in the offenders’ best interests that they be held accountable for their actions ... The broader options available to the district court in adult proceedings to hold offenders accountable provide the Court with greater ability to impose the apprоpriate level of accountability ....”
¶19 The trier of fact resolves conflicts in the evidence before it, and this Court will not reevaluate this same evidence on appeal.
Spina,
¶ 30. Despite the testimony of three of Whiteman’s teachers describing him as intelligent аnd respectful and a psychologist who believed Whiteman just needed more structure, sufficient credible evidence supports the District Court’s findings that a youth court proceeding and disposition would not serve the interests of the community or promote Whiteman’s rehabilitation.
See
¶20 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court.
CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY, JUSTICES NELSON, COTTER, LEAPHART, WARNER and RICE concur.