Title: In re R.D.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
 
 
                                No. 88-592
 
 
In re R.D.                                   Supreme Court
 
                                             On Appeal From
                                             District Court of Vermont
                                             Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit
 
                                             June Term, 1989
 
 
John P. Connarn, J., Specially Assigned
 
Mark T. Cameron, Windsor County Deputy State's Attorney, White River
  Junction, for plaintiff-appellee
 
Martin & Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant
 
 
PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.
 
 
     ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals from the denial of a motion to transfer
his case to juvenile court pursuant to 33 V.S.A. { 635(b).  Defendant con-
tends that the trial court erred in considering his prior juvenile record
in making its determination.  We affirm.
     Defendant was arrested for possession of one-half ounce or more of
marijuana in violation of 18 V.S.A. { 4224(e)(1)(B).  Defendant was sixteen
years old at the time of the alleged offense.  The state's attorney exer-
cised the discretion provided by 33 V.S.A. { 635(c) (FN1) and opted to file
charges in a court of criminal jurisdiction rather than juvenile court.
Defendant moved pursuant to 33 V.S.A. { 635(b) (FN2) to transfer the proceedings
to juvenile court.  According to the tenor of this motion, defendant's age
comprised the sole, and therefore an insufficient, basis for the State's
decision to charge defendant as an adult.  The State opposed the motion to
transfer and set forth the factors that underlay the decision to charge
defendant in criminal court.  The State's memorandum in opposition delin-
eated defendant's prior juvenile record, his noncompliance with the con-
ditions of juvenile probation, and his failure to engage in rehabilitation
efforts.  Defendant asserted his right to the confidentiality of his
juvenile records and objected to the State's use of these records to block
transfer to juvenile court.
     In an effort to insulate defendant's juvenile record from public
scrutiny, the trial court struck all references to the record from the
State's memorandum.  The trial court judge conducted an in camera review of
defendant's prior juvenile record and his history of noncompliance with
juvenile probation and rehabilitation efforts.  After considering these
among other factors, the court denied the motion to transfer and held
defendant over in district court for trial.
     Defendant appealed on the authority of State v. Lafayette, 148 Vt. 288,