Case Title: Brown v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
Damien BROWN v. STATE of Arkansas

97-722                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 13, 1997


1.   Juveniles -- juvenile transfer -- review of denial. -- In
     reviewing a transfer-denial decision, the supreme court does
     not overturn the circuit court unless the decision is clearly
     erroneous; the circuit court's decision to retain jurisdiction
     must be supported by clear and convincing evidence of three
     statutory factors:  (1) the seriousness of the offense, and
     whether the juvenile used violence in its commission; (2)
     whether the offense is part of a repetitive pattern of
     adjudicated offenses that would lead the court to determine
     that the juvenile is beyond rehabilitation under existing
     programs; and (3) the juvenile's prior history, character
     traits, mental maturity, and other factors that would show
     potential for effective rehabilitation; the trial court is not
     required to give equal weight to each of these three factors. 
     

2.   Evidence -- hearsay admitted without objection may constitute
     substantial evidence to support ruling -- hearsay properly
     considered at trial. -- Inadmissible hearsay admitted without
     objection may constitute substantial evidence to support a
     ruling; where appellant's counsel did not object to the
     hearsay, the trial court did not err in considering it.  

3.   Juveniles -- defendant charged with serious and violent crime
     -- information can constitute sufficient evidence to
     establish. -- An information can constitute sufficient
     evidence to establish that the defendant is charged with a
     serious and violent crime; however, a meaningful hearing
     establishing substantial evidence to support the charge is
     still needed.

4.   Juveniles -- robbery charge linked to serious and violent
     conduct -- circuit court did not err in retaining
     jurisdiction. -- Where appellant was given a meaningful
     hearing, the State's evidence of fighting with and forcibly
     removing a jacket from a bus passenger was sufficient to
     establish that the robbery charge was linked to serious and
     violent conduct, and the police officer's testimony regarding
     seriousness of injuries, the manner in which the injuries
     occurred, and an indication that the victim identified the
     defendant, supported the link between the aggravated assault
     charge against appellant and the serious and violent nature of
     that offense, and where there was evidence to support other
     criteria of Ark. Code Ann.  9-27-318 (e) - (f), the circuit
     court did not err in retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Ark.
     Code Ann.  9-27-318(e).

5.   Juveniles -- juvenile transfer -- potential for rehabilitation
     within juvenile system nil. -- Where appellant was already
     eighteen years old at the time of the hearing, and charges of
     serious and violent felony offenses remained to be
     adjudicated, his potential for rehabilitation within the
     juvenile system was nil. 

6.   Juveniles -- juvenile transfer -- potential for rehabilitation
     and repetitive pattern of adjudicated offenses considered --
     decision to deny transfer to juvenile court not in error. --
     The supreme court found that, based on considerations of
     appellant's age and the State's evidence linking the robbery
     and aggravated assault charges to serious and violent
     offenses, there was no clear error in the trial court's
     decision to deny transfer to juvenile court.


          Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; John W. Langston,
Judge; affirmed.
     William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by:  Deborah R.
Sallings, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Brad Newman, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     Appellant, Damien Deshun Brown, brings this interlocutory
appeal of the trial court's order denying his motion to transfer
the charges against him to juvenile court.  Because the trial
court's decision to retain jurisdiction of this case was not
clearly erroneous, we affirm.
     Brown was charged with aggravated assault, a Class D felony,
on July 29, 1996, five months before his eighteenth birthday. 
Three months later, he was charged with robbery, a Class B felony. 
By the time of the hearing on the motion to transfer both charges,
Brown was eighteen years old.  
     The alleged robbery occurred on a Central Arkansas Transit
bus.  An investigating officer testified that two subjects fought
with, and forcibly removed a jacket from a passenger.  The officer
stated that one of the subjects was wearing a red cast on his arm. 
When Brown was apprehended, he was wearing a red arm-cast.  Brown
was later identified by someone in a photo lineup at the police
station.
     The aggravated assault charge resulted from dog-bite injuries
after a pit bull was allegedly ordered to attack the victim.  In
support of its charge, the State called the investigating officer
who testified to the following:  
At the time we made contact with the victim, and he
stated that a black male was walking his pit bull down
Crutcher Street.  And during that time, the black male
told the pit bull to bite him.  And later we learned
through Mr. Brown's cousin his address, and we then went
to that address and made contact with Mr. Brown.
After the officer testified about the seriousness of the victim's
injuries, counsel for the State asked, "And [the victim] indicated
that Mr. Brown had told the pit bull to get him?"  The officer
answered, "Right.  That's right."
     In support of his motion to transfer, Brown testified that he
was seventeen years old at the time of each offense, and that while
he had been through the juvenile court system before, he had been
sent to training school on only one occasion.
     At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied
Brown's motion to transfer the charges to juvenile court, stating
that it had "considered all those factors" of the relevant section
of the Arkansas code.  For error, Brown brings two claims:  First,
the State failed to produce substantial evidence to support the
charges levied against him, and second, the State produced no
evidence to show a repetitive pattern of adjudicated offenses that
would suggest he was beyond rehabilitation.  
     In reviewing a transfer-denial decision, we do not overturn
the circuit court unless the decision is clearly erroneous. 
McClure v. State, 328 Ark. 35, 39, 942 S.W.2d 243, 245 (1997)
(citing Holmes v. State, 322 Ark. 574,