- 44 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

In re Interest of William E., a child 

under 18 years of age.

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

William E., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed October 27, 2020. No. A-20-316.

1. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a juvenile court’s decision to transfer a juvenile 

offender’s case to county court or district court de novo on the record 

for an abuse of discretion.

2. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. When the evidence is in conflict, 

an appellate court may give weight to the fact that the lower court 

observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts over 

the other.

3. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction. When the prosecution seeks to 

transfer a juvenile offender’s case to criminal court, the juvenile court 

must retain the matter unless a preponderance of the evidence shows 

that the proceeding should be transferred to the county court or district 

court. The prosecution has the burden by a preponderance of the evidence to show why such proceeding should be transferred.

4. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Public Health and Welfare.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-276 (Supp. 2019) sets forth 15 factors for a juvenile 

court to consider in making the determination of whether to transfer a 

case to county court or district court. The same factors are considered 

when determining whether to transfer a case to juvenile court. The 

court need not resolve every factor against the juvenile, and there are 

no weighted factors and no prescribed method by which more or less 

weight is assigned to a specific factor. It is a balancing test by which 

public protection and societal security are weighed against the practical 

and nonproblematical rehabilitation of the juvenile.

5. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction. While a review of all of the 

factors is not required, it is preferable that a trial court or a juvenile 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

11/03/2020 08:27 AM CST
- 45 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

court refer to all the statutory considerations set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-276 (Supp. 2019) in its order.

6. ____: ____: ____. In regard to the “best interests of the juvenile,” per 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-276(1)(f) (Supp. 2019), every juvenile’s best interests would be better served by attempting rehabilitation in the juvenile 

court system rather than being sentenced to a term of imprisonment in 

the adult corrections system.

7. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Public Health and Welfare. It 

is not a matter of the quantity of factors favoring retention or transfer of 

a juvenile offender’s case. Rather, the test requires consideration of all 

the factors in light of the evidence presented, followed by a balancing of 

(1) the factors which support retaining the case in the juvenile court for 

the practical and nonproblematical rehabilitation of the juvenile against 

(2) the factors which support transferring the case to county or district 

court in the interest of public protection and societal security.

8. ____: ____: ____: ____. A trial court must balance a juvenile’s amenability to complete rehabilitation by age 19 against the public’s safety in the 

event that rehabilitation fails or requires more time than anticipated.

9. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction. The trial court’s or juvenile 

court’s decision regarding the transfer of a juvenile offender’s case carries the consequences that if the decision is wrongly made, the court 

has either missed an opportunity to rehabilitate a juvenile outside the 

negative influences of adult incarceration or failed to adequately incarcerate a potentially dangerous juvenile who will go on to commit further 

violent crimes.

Appeal from the County Court for Adams County: 

Michael O. Mead, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further 

proceedings.

Kelsey Helget, Assistant Adams County Public Defender, 

for appellant.

Cassie L. Baldwin, Deputy Adams County Attorney, for 

appellee.

Pirtle, Bishop, and Welch, Judges.

Pirtle, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

William E. appeals an order of the county court for Adams 

County, sitting as a juvenile court, which transferred his case 
- 46 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

to county court. Based upon our de novo review, we conclude 

the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting the transfer 

of the case to county court. We therefore reverse the juvenile 

court’s order granting the State’s motion to transfer the case to 

county court, and we remand the cause for further proceedings 

in juvenile court.

BACKGROUND

On April 1, 2020, the State filed a petition in the county 

court for Adams County, sitting as a juvenile court, alleging 

William was a juvenile within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-247(2) (Reissue 2016) because he had committed the 

offense of third degree domestic assault against a pregnant 

woman, a Class IV felony offense. The victim was his girlfriend. William was 17 years old at the time of the offense. The 

State simultaneously filed a motion to transfer William’s case 

from juvenile court to county court.

The juvenile court conducted a transfer hearing. The State 

offered three exhibits into evidence, as well as the testimony of 

Mikki Schoone, a child and family services specialist with the 

Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services.

Schoone testified that William was born in July 2002, making him 17 years old at the time of the hearing. He was placed 

in the State’s custody on March 30, 2020, and Schoone conducted a safety assessment, which was offered into evidence 

as exhibit 3. Schoone testified that William’s mother lives in 

El Salvador and that his father is deceased. William had no 

legal guardian when he was placed in the State’s custody. 

Schoone learned that there was guardianship paperwork prepared for William’s aunt to become his legal guardian, but the 

paperwork had not been filed. William had been living with his 

pregnant girlfriend. The age of the girlfriend is unclear from 

the record. Schoone testified that William’s girlfriend was 20 

years old, but exhibit 2 indicates she was 23 years old at the 

time of the incident.
- 47 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

Schoone testified that William was not enrolled in school and 

had not been enrolled in high school since September 2019. At 

that time, William’s uncle “signed him out,” telling the school 

that William was going to work. Schoone believed that William 

was employed at the time of the hearing, working for different 

roofing companies. The only prior law violation Schoone found 

was a failure to have an operator’s license on him.

The safety assessment, exhibit 3, states that a Hastings, 

Nebraska, police officer informed Schoone that William was 

arrested for third degree domestic assault after his pregnant girlfriend went to a hospital with a broken nose. William and his 

girlfriend had been arguing, and he pushed her on the bed. The 

girlfriend then grabbed William’s phone and broke it. William 

then pushed her down and started punching her in the face.

Exhibit 1 was a juvenile intake summary prepared by a probation officer, documenting her intake of William on March 

30, 2020, after he was taken into custody. William told her 

that he had been living with his girlfriend for 2 weeks and that 

neither he nor his girlfriend were employed at the time. Prior 

to living with his girlfriend in Hastings, he lived with his aunt 

in Schuyler, Nebraska.

In regard to the alleged assault, the probation officer stated 

that she was told that William’s girlfriend, who was 15 weeks 

pregnant, went to the hospital to be examined and had a 

bloody nose. William’s girlfriend had reported to an officer 

that William had been angry about her contacting an old boyfriend, so he was outside talking to another woman. William’s 

girlfriend reportedly got mad and broke William’s phone, 

which then angered him. William allegedly grabbed his girlfriend’s throat, pushed her on the bed, and punched her in 

the face.

Exhibit 2 was an “Affidavit of Warrantless Custody of 

Juvenile,” prepared by an officer of the Hastings Police 

Department after he took William into custody. The officer 

stated in the affidavit that he spoke with William’s girlfriend 

at the hospital after the alleged assault and that she told him 
- 48 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

William had been talking to another woman on his phone and 

she told him to go to bed. William started getting aggressive 

with her and “was cussing at her, calling her vulgar names.” 

William grabbed her by the neck and pushed her on the bed, 

so she scratched him on the arm to get him off. She then took 

William’s phone and broke it. William got mad, threw her on 

the bed, and punched her in the face about four times.

Exhibit 2 also stated that the officer spoke with William, 

who agreed that his girlfriend had been mad at him for talking 

to another woman on the phone. His girlfriend then took his 

phone and broke it. William told the officer that his girlfriend 

started pushing and hitting him, so he hit her back.

The officer further stated in exhibit 2 that William’s girlfriend’s nose was swollen and was starting to bruise. She also 

had a bruise on her left breast that she stated William caused a 

couple days earlier. William had a scratch on his left forearm 

approximately 4 inches long.

The juvenile court entered an oral pronouncement from 

the bench granting the State’s motion to transfer the matter to 

county court. The court subsequently entered a journal entry 

granting the State’s motion.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

William assigns that the juvenile court erred in finding that 

the State presented sufficient evidence to support a decision to 

transfer his case to county court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] An appellate court reviews a juvenile court’s decision 

to transfer a juvenile offender’s case to county court or district 

court de novo on the record for an abuse of discretion. In re 

Interest of Steven S., 299 Neb. 447, 908 N.W.2d 391 (2018). 

When the evidence is in conflict, an appellate court may give 

weight to the fact that the lower court observed the witnesses 

and accepted one version of the facts over the other. Id.
- 49 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

ANALYSIS

[3] When the prosecution seeks to transfer a juvenile offender’s case to criminal court, the juvenile court must retain the 

matter unless a preponderance of the evidence shows that the 

proceeding should be transferred to the county court or district 

court. Id. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-274(5) (Supp. 2019). The 

prosecution has the burden by a preponderance of the evidence 

to show why such proceeding should be transferred. Id.

[4] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-276 (Supp. 2019) sets forth 15 factors for a juvenile court to consider in making the determination 

of whether to transfer a case to county court or district court. 

The same factors are considered when determining whether 

to transfer a case to juvenile court. In re Interest of Steven 

S., supra. The court need not resolve every factor against the 

juvenile, and there are no weighted factors and no prescribed 

method by which more or less weight is assigned to a specific 

factor. See id. Rather, it is a balancing test by which public protection and societal security are weighed against the practical 

and nonproblematical rehabilitation of the juvenile. Id.

The 15 factors set forth in § 43-276(1) for the court to consider are as follows:

(a) The type of treatment such juvenile would most likely 

be amenable to; (b) whether there is evidence that the 

alleged offense included violence; (c) the motivation for 

the commission of the offense; (d) the age of the juvenile 

and the ages and circumstances of any others involved 

in the offense; (e) the previous history of the juvenile, 

including whether he or she had been convicted of any 

previous offenses or adjudicated in juvenile court; (f) 

the best interests of the juvenile; (g) consideration of 

public safety; (h) consideration of the juvenile’s ability 

to appreciate the nature and seriousness of his or her 

conduct; (i) whether the best interests of the juvenile and 

the security of the public may require that the juvenile 

continue in secure detention or under supervision for a 

period extending beyond his or her minority and, if so, 
- 50 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

the available alternatives best suited to this purpose; (j) 

whether the victim or juvenile agree to participate in 

restorative justice; (k) whether there is a juvenile pretrial diversion program established pursuant to sections 

43-260.02 to 43-260.07; (l) whether the juvenile has 

been convicted of or has acknowledged unauthorized use 

or possession of a firearm; (m) whether a juvenile court 

order has been issued for the juvenile pursuant to section 

43-2,106.03; (n) whether the juvenile is a criminal street 

gang member; and (o) such other matters as the parties 

deem relevant to aid in the decision.

William argues that the State failed to produce sufficient 

evidence to meet its burden to show that the case should be 

transferred to county court. Before addressing the evidence 

presented by the State and the factors set forth above, we first 

note that the court made a brief oral pronouncement from the 

bench following a hearing that lasted only 24 minutes, stating 

the factors it found to weigh in favor of transferring the case 

to county court. It then entered the following journal entry: 

“Court finds that, based on JV43-276, no treatment available 

and this offense was violent, public safety as well, and old 

enough to appreciate serious [sic] of the offense.”

[5] We also note there were three exhibits offered and 

received into evidence, but the record does not indicate when 

the court would have reviewed those exhibits prior to its oral 

pronouncement at the end of the hearing. The court did not 

explain in its oral pronouncement or its journal entry why it 

found certain factors favored transferring the case to county 

court, nor did it review all the factors. We would encourage 

courts to take the time to review the evidence and then make 

a more thorough written order analyzing the relevant factors 

as set out in § 43-276, which ensures a meaningful review by 

an appellate court. While a review of all of the factors is not 

required, it is preferable that a trial court or a juvenile court 

refer to all the statutory considerations set forth in § 43-276 

in its order. See State v. Tyler P., 299 Neb. 959, 911 N.W.2d 

260 (2018).
- 51 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

We now turn to the question of whether the State met its 

burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence why the 

proceeding should be transferred to county court. See In re 

Interest of Steven S., 299 Neb. 447, 908 N.W.2d 391 (2018).

Factors Favoring Transfer.

When the juvenile court orally pronounced its decision from 

the bench, it stated that it found 6 of the 15 factors set forth in 

§ 43-276(1) weighed in favor of transferring the case: the type 

of treatment the juvenile would be amenable to, § 43-276(1)(a); 

the alleged offense included violence, § 43-276(1)(b); the motivation for the commission of the offense, § 43-276(1)(c); the age 

of the juvenile, § 43-276(1)(d); public safety, § 43-276(1)(g); 

and the juvenile’s ability to appreciate the nature and seriousness of his conduct, § 43-276(1)(h).

We agree with the juvenile court in regard to three of the six 

factors it found favored transferring the case. First, we agree 

that the alleged offense included violence. See § 43-276(1)(b). 

William does not dispute that third degree domestic assault of 

a pregnant woman is a crime of violence. The evidence showed 

that William grabbed his girlfriend by the neck, pushed her 

onto the bed, and punched her in the face about four times. 

William admitted to hitting her. This factor favors transferring 

the case to county court.

Second, we agree with the court that “the motivation for the 

commission of the offense” factor weighed in favor of transferring the case. See § 43-276(1)(c). William’s motivation for the 

offense was based on his girlfriend’s breaking his phone during a dispute about William talking to another woman on the 

phone. His reaction was to push his pregnant girlfriend onto 

the bed and punch her in the face multiple times.

Third, we agree with the court that William’s age favored 

transferring the case. See § 43-276(1)(d). At the time of the 

hearing in April 2020, William was 17 years 9 months old, giving the juvenile court jurisdiction over William for just over a 

year before he turned 19 years old.
- 52 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

The State also contends that another factor weighed in 

favor of transferring the case to county court, with which we 

agree: “such other matters as the parties deem relevant to aid 

in the decision.” See § 43-276(1)(o). William was living as 

an adult at the time of the alleged offense. His mother lives 

in El Salvador, and his father is deceased. Further, he had no 

guardian providing care for him. He was living independently 

as an adult with his girlfriend, who was at least 20 years old 

and pregnant with William’s child. William was not enrolled in 

school, and Schoone believed he was working. We agree that 

these are appropriate and relevant considerations.

Factors Favoring Retention.

We disagree with the juvenile court in regard to the three 

other factors it found supported transferring the case, and 

we find that those factors actually favor the juvenile court’s 

retaining the case. Those factors are: the type of treatment the 

juvenile would be amenable to, § 43-276(1)(a); public safety, 

§ 43-276(1)(g); and the juvenile’s ability to appreciate the 

nature and seriousness of his conduct, § 43-276(1)(h).

First, in regard to “[t]he type of treatment such juvenile 

would most likely be amenable to,” the juvenile court stated 

that there would not be adequate treatment available to William 

in the juvenile court. See § 43-276(1)(a). The court did not 

explain how it arrived at this conclusion, and there was no 

evidence presented to support it. There was no evidence presented as to what type of treatment William would or would 

not be responsive to. He had never been involved in the juvenile system before, so there was no indication as to how he 

would respond to services and programs offered in the juvenile 

system. There was no evidence as to what type of juvenile 

services existed and why those services would not be available 

or would not work for William, and no evidence was presented 

to show that William could not be rehabilitated by the time he 

turned 19 years old.
- 53 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

Second, we find that the “public safety” factor weighs in favor 

of the juvenile court’s retaining the case. See § 43-276(1)(g). 

Again, the court did not explain its reasoning for coming to 

the opposite conclusion. There was no evidence presented by 

the State to show that William posed a public safety risk. The 

incident at issue arose from a domestic dispute between him 

and his girlfriend; there was no indication that the public was 

at risk of harm. In addition, exhibit 1 showed that the results 

of a scoring tool used by probation “indicated release the 

youth without restriction,” indicating William did not pose a 

safety risk.

Third, in regard to “the juvenile’s ability to appreciate the 

nature and seriousness of his or her conduct,” there was no 

evidence presented to show that William could or could not 

appreciate the nature and seriousness of his conduct. See 

§ 43-276(1)(h).

In addition to the three factors discussed above, there are 

other factors which favor retention by the juvenile court. The 

“previous history of the juvenile” factor, see § 43-276(1)(e), 

weighs in favor of retention. There was no evidence that 

William had any criminal convictions or that he had ever 

been adjudicated previously in juvenile court. The only prior 

law violation William had was a failure to have an operator’s 

license on him. In addition, there is no evidence that “[William] 

has been convicted of or has acknowledged unauthorized use 

or possession of a firearm,” see § 43-276(1)(l), or that he is a 

“criminal street gang member,” see § 43-276(1)(n).

[6] In regard to the “best interests of the juvenile,” 

§ 43-276(1)(f), as this court has recently stated, every juvenile’s best interests would be better served by attempting 

rehabilitation in the juvenile court system rather than being 

sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the adult corrections 

system. See State v. Esai P., 28 Neb. App. 226, 942 N.W.2d 

416 (2020). And as previously pointed out, there is no evidence 

to indicate William would not be amenable to rehabilitation in 

the juvenile court system.
- 54 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

There was also no evidence presented in regard to “whether 

the best interests of the juvenile and the security of the public 

may require that the juvenile continue in secure detention or 

under supervision for a period extending beyond his or her 

minority and, if so, the available alternatives best suited to 

this purpose,” see § 43-276(1)(i). The State did not show that 

William would require secure detention or supervision for a 

period extending beyond his minority. As previously stated, 

there was no evidence that 1 year would not be enough time for 

William to be rehabilitated in the juvenile system.

The remaining factors that we have not discussed are not 

present and are neutral: “whether the victim or juvenile agree to 

participate in restorative justice,” see § 43-276(1)(j); “whether 

there is a juvenile pretrial diversion program established pursuant to sections 43-260.02 to 43-260.07,” see § 43-276(1)(k); 

and “whether a juvenile court order has been issued for the 

juvenile pursuant to section 43-2,106.03,” see § 43-276(1)(m).

Balancing Public Safety Against 

Rehabilitation of Juvenile.

[7-9] As previously stated, it is the State’s burden by a 

preponderance of the evidence to show why such proceeding 

should be transferred. The State’s evidence focused primarily on the incident at issue, rather than the factors set forth in 

§ 43-276(1). Accordingly, the evidence only supports a few 

factors that weigh in favor of the State’s motion to transfer the 

case to county court. However, it is not a matter of the quantity of factors favoring retention or transfer. Rather, the test 

requires consideration of all the factors in light of the evidence 

presented, followed by a balancing of (1) the factors which 

support retaining the case in the juvenile court for the practical and nonproblematical rehabilitation of the juvenile against 

(2) the factors which support transferring the case to county or 

district court in the interest of public protection and societal 

security. See State v. Esai P., supra. In other words, “This 

means that a trial court must balance a juvenile’s amenability to complete rehabilitation by age 19 against the public’s 
- 55 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

29 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF WILLIAM E.

Cite as 29 Neb. App. 44

safety in the event that rehabilitation fails or requires more 

time than anticipated.” State v. Leroux, 26 Neb. App. 76, 118, 

916 N.W.2d 903, 929 (2018). The trial court’s or juvenile 

court’s decision carries the consequences that if the decision 

is wrongly made, we have either missed an opportunity to 

rehabilitate a juvenile outside the negative influences of adult 

incarceration or failed to adequately incarcerate a potentially 

dangerous juvenile who will go on to commit further violent 

crimes. See id.

In this instance, the juvenile court failed to conduct the balancing test described above. Our review of the record reveals 

that the State failed to present any evidence that William 

could not be successfully rehabilitated before reaching age 19, 

despite the fact that he was almost 18 years old at the time of 

the transfer hearing. William has not been involved with the 

juvenile system before, so there was no indication that William 

would not be amenable to juvenile services. In addition, based 

on the evidence presented, William did not pose a public safety 

risk. He had no prior criminal history, no prior juvenile adjudications, and no history of violent behavior, other than the 

present offense. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence 

for the juvenile court to properly weigh William’s practical and 

nonproblematical rehabilitation under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction against those factors favoring transfer to adult court 

in the interest of public safety and protection. Absent such 

evidence and consideration, we must conclude the juvenile 

court abused its discretion in granting the transfer of the case 

to county court.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the juvenile 

court’s order granting the State’s motion to transfer the case to 

the county court and remand the cause for further proceedings 

in the juvenile court.

Reversed and remanded for 

further proceedings.