### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2013 WY 85

APRIL TERM, A.D. 2013

July 12, 2013

JB,

Petitioner,

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Respondent. No. S

- 12

- 0239

Original Proceeding

Petition for Writ of Review

District Court of Fremont Coun ty

The Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Petitioner:

Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; E r i c M

. A l d e n

, S e n i o r A s s i s t a n t A

p p e l l a t e

C o u n s e l

. A r g u m e n t b y M r

. A l d e n

.

Representing Respondent:

Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General;

Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant

Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Pope.

B e f o r e K I T E

, C

. J

. , a n d H I L L

, V O I G T

, B U R K E

, a n d D A V I S

, J J

.

N O T I C E : T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f

o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n P a c i f

i c R e p o r t e r T h i r d

. R e a d e r

s

a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f

y t h e C l e r

k o f t h e S u p r

e m e C o u r

t

, S u p r e m e C o u r

t B u i l d i n g , C h e y e n n e , W y o m i n g

8 2 0 0 2

, o f a n y t y p o g r

a p h i c a l o r o t h e r f

o r m a l e r r

o r s s o t h a t c o r r

e c t i o n m a y b e m a d e b e f o r e f i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n i n

t h e p e r m a n e n t v o l u m e

.1

B U R K E

, J u s t i c e

.

[ ¶ 1 ] T h e P e t i t i o n e r

, JB, 1 is a minor w ho was charged as an adult with nine felonies

a r i s i n g f r o m a h o m e i n v

a s i o n a n d t

h e r e s u l t i n g d e a t h s o f t w o i n d i v i d u a l s

. H e w a s f i f t e e n

a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c r i m e s

. P r i o r t o t r i a l

, J B f i l e d a M o t i o n t o T r a n s f

e r P r o c e e d i n g s t o

J u v e n i l e C o u r t

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

. J B t

h e n f i l e d a P e t i t i o n f

o r W r i t o f

R e v i e w s e e k i n g i n t e r l o c u

t o r y r e v i e w o f t h a t d e c i s i o n

. I n s u p p o r t o f h i s P e t i t i o n

, h e

c l a i m e d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y p l a c e d t h e b u r d e

n o n h i m t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e

c a s e s h o u l d b e t r a n s f

e r r e d t o j u v

e n i l e c o u r t

. W e g

r a n t e d t h e P e t i t i o n

. U

p o n r e v i e w

, w e

c o n c l u d e t h a

t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o a s s i g

n t h e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n t o t h e

S t a t e t o e s t a

b l i s h t h a t t h e c a s e s h o u l d n o t b e t r a n s f e r r e d t o j u v

e n i l e c o u r t

. A c c o r d i n g

l y

,

w e r e v e r s e a n d r e m a n d f

o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

.

I S S U E

[ ¶ 2 ] Although JB lists nine issues in his brief, we find a single issue to be dispositive:

D i d t h e d i s t r i c t court improperly place the burden of persuasion on JB rather than on the

S t a t e ?

F A C T S

[ ¶ 3 ] O n M a r c h 1 4

, 2 0 1 2

, J B was charged with two counts of first degree murder, two

counts of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, two counts of aggravated robbery,

t w o c o u n t s o f c o n s p i r a c y t o c o m m i t a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y , and one count of first degree

a r s o n

. T h e p r o s e c u

t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t J B h a d a s s i s t e d t

h r e e a d u l t s i n t h e i r plan to rob and

k i l l t w o v i c t i m s i n t h e i r h o m e

. I t a s s e r t e d t h a t t w o o f t h e a d u l t s e n t e r e d the vi c t i m s ’

home and robbed and attacked them , while JB and the other adult s t a y e d o u t s i d e t o a c t a s lookouts and messengers. Later, JB entered the home

, and as instructed by o n e o f t h e

adults, allegedly struck one of the victims on the head with a dresser dra wer. The

prosecution alleged that JB may have struck the killing blow

. I t w a s f u r t h e r a l l e g

e d t h a t

JB and one of the adults attempted to set fire to the home

.

[ ¶ 4 ] Although JB was fifteen when the crimes were allegedly committed, he was

c h a r g e d i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s a n a d u l t

. J B m o v e d t o t r a n s f

e r h i s c a s e t o j u v e n i l e c o u r t

. I n

h i s m e m o r a n d u m i n s u p p o r t o f t h e m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r

, J B a s s e r t e d t h a

t h e did not

1 We generally use a minor’s name when he has been charged as an adult. H o w e v e r

, p u r s u a

n t t o W y o

. Stat. Ann. § 14

- 6

- 224(b) (LexisNexis 2011), hearings on motions to transfer proceedings to juvenile court

are closed to the public. The district court closed the hearing in JB’s case, and pleadings and orders

connected to the m

otion to transfer were filed under seal. We granted JB’s motion to continue treating

this as a confidential case and, accordingly, we identify the Petitioner by his initials.2

p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p l a n

n i n g o f t h e c r i m e s

, b u t w a s c o e r c e d i n t o p a r t i c i p a t i n g b y t h e a

d u l t s

. H e e m p h a s i z e d t h a t h e w a s d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y c h a l l e n g

e d a n d i m m a t u r e

, a n d l i k e l y t o b e

r e h a b i l i t a t e d b y t h e s e r v i c e s a n d f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t

. T h e S t a t e

r e s i s t e d t h e m o t i o n

. A f

t e r s u b s t a n t i a l b r i e f

i n g f r o m t h e p a r t i e s

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d a

h e a r i n g a n d

, u l t i m a t e l y

, d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

. J B f i l e d a P e t i t i o n f

o r W r i t o f R e v i e w

,

s e e k i n g t o c h a l l e n g

e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e

n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o j u v e n i l e c o u r t

. W e g

r a n t e d t h e P e t i t i o n

.

S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W

[ ¶ 5 ] “ Allocation o f

the burden of proof is a matter of law. ” Dan’s Supermarket v. Pate

, 2001 WY 104, ¶ 8

, 33 P.3d 1121, 1124 (Wyo. 2001) ; JM v. Department of Family Servs.

, 922 P.2d 219, 221 (Wyo. 1996)

. We review questions of law de novo

. A m o c o P r o d

. C o

. v. EM Nominee P

artnership Co ., 2 P.3d 534, 540 (Wyo. 2000).

D I S C U S S I O N

[ ¶ 6 ] Under Wyoming’s Juvenile Justice Act, cases against m i n o r s f o u r t e e n o r o l d e r

who are charged with violent felonies “ may be o r i g i n a l l y c o m m e n c e d e i t h e r i n t

h e juvenile court or in the district court. ” Wy o. Stat. Ann. § 14

- 6

- 203(f)(iv)

. A minor b e i n g prosecuted i n district court may m o v e t o h a v e t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t r a n s f e r r e d t o j u v

e n i l e

court pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14

- 6

- 237(g), which provides as follows:

I f a n y p r o c e e d i n g c o m m e n c e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s w i t h i n

t h e c o n c u r r e n

t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e j u v

e n i l e c o u r t

, t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t m a y o n m o t i o n o f a n y p a r t y o r o n i t s o w n m o t i o n o r

d e r

a n y p r o c e e d i n g t r a n s f

e r r e d t o t h e j u v

e n i l e c o u r t

. T h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t j u d g

e m a y

, a f

t e r n o t i c e a n d h e a r i n g

, f i n d t h e m a t t e r

m o r e p r o p e r l y s u i t e d t o d i s p o s i t i o n u n d e r t h e p r

o v i s i o n s o f

t h i s a c t

. T h e o r d e r o f t r a n s f e r c o n f e r s u p o n t h e j u v

e n i l e c o u r t

f u l l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e m a t t e r a s i f o r i g i n a l l y c o m m e n c e d i n

t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t

.

S u b s e c t i o n ( b ) o f t h i s s t a t u t e s e t s f o r t h t h e c r i t e r i a t o b e c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e c o u r t w h e n

m a k i n g t r a n s f

e r d e c i s i o n s :

T h e c o u r t s h a

l l o r d e r t h e m a t t e r t r a

n s f e r r e d t o t h e a

p p r o p r i a t e

c o u r t f o r p r o s e c u t i o n i f a f

t e r t h e t r a

n s f e r h e a r i n g i t f

i n d s t h a t

p r o p e r r e a s o n t h e r e f

o r e x i s t s

. T h e d e t e r m

i n a t i v e f a c t o r s t o b e

c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e j u d g

e i n d e c i ding whether the juvenile

court’ s jurisdiction over such offenses will b e waived are the

following:3 ( i ) T h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e t o t h e

c o m m u n i t y a n d w

h e t h e r t h e p r

o t e c t i o n o f t h e

c o m m u n i t y r e q u i r e d w a i v

e r ;

( i i ) W h e t h e r t h e a l l e g

e d o f f e n s e w a s c o m m

i t t e d i n

a n a g g r e s s i v e

, v i o l e n t

, p r e m e d i t a t e d o r w i l l f u l m a n n e r ;

( i i i ) W h e t h e r t h e a l l e g

e d o f f e n s e w a s a g a i n s t

p e r s o n s o r a g

a i n s t p r o p e r t y

, g

r e a t e r w e i g

h t b e i n g g i v e n

t o o f f e n s e s a g a i n s t p e r s o n s e s p e c i a l l y i f p e r s o n a l i n j u r y

r e s u l t e d ;

( i v ) T h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t r i a l a n d d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e

entire offense in one (1) court when the juvenile’ s associates in the alleged offense are adults who will be

charged with a crime;

( v ) T h e s o p h i s t i c a t i o n a n d m a t u r i t y o f t h e j u v e n i l e

a s d e t e r m

i n e d b y c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f h i s h o m e

,

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n

, e m o t i o n a l a t t i t u d e a n d p a t t e r n

o f l i v i n g ;

( v i ) T h e r e c o r d a n d p r e v i o u s h i s t o r y o f t h e j u v

e n i l e

, i n c l u d i n g p r e v i o u s c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e l a w e n f o r c e m e n t

a g e n c i e s

, j u v

e n i l e c o u r

t s a n d o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s

, p r i o r

p e r i o d s o f p r o b a t i o n t o t h i s c o u r t

, o r p r i o r

c o m m i t m e n t s t o j u v

e n i l e i n s t i t u t i o n s ;

( v i i ) T h e p r o s p e c t s f

o r a d e q u a t e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e

p u b l i c a n d t

h e l i k e l i h o o d o f r e a s o n a b l e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n

o f t h e j u v

e n i l e ( i f h e i s f

o u n d t o h a v

e c o m m i t t e d t h e

a l l e g e d o f f e n s e ) b y t h e u s e o f p r o c e d u r e s

, s e r v i c e s a n d

f a c i l i t i e s c u r r e n t l y a v

a i l a b l e t o t

h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t

.

[ ¶ 7 ] As noted above, the district court denied JB’s m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r t h e c a s e t o juvenile c ourt. T he district court set forth its reasoning in a sixteen

- page written decision

discussing all of the statutory factors

. I n its order, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t J B “ h a s the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence , that this c a s e s h o u l d b e

transferred from D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o J u v e n i l e C o u r t

. ” I

t c o n c l u d e d t h a

t J B “ f a i l e d t o s h o w

, b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e

, t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h i s c a s e s h o u l d b e

transferred to Juvenile Court.” R elying on our decision in Hansen v. State

, 9 0 4 P

. 2 d 8 1 1

(Wyo. 1995)

, JB claims that the district court erred in a ssigning the b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n4

t o h i m

. W e a g

r e e

.

[ ¶ 8 ] I n H a n s e n , we considered two consolidated petitions for writs of review. In one,

s i x t e e n

- y e a r

- o l d A

r t h u r H a n s e n w a s c h a r g

e d a s a n a d

u l t i n d i s t r i c t c o u r

t

. H is motion to

t r a n s f e r t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o j u v e n i l e c o u r t w a s d e n i e d , and he petitioned for review of that

d e c i s i o n

. I

d

. a t 8 1 4

- 1 5

. I

n t h e o t h e r

, p r

o c e e d i n g s i n j u v

e n i l e c o u r t w e r e i n i t i a t e d against

f i f t e e n

- y e a r

- o l d D e r e k P a p p a n . The State ’s motion to t ransfer his case to district court

was granted , and he petitioned for review

. I d

. at 815. Both petitioners c l a i m e d t h a t

Wyoming’s Juvenile Justice Act was “ d e f e c t i v e i n f

a i l i n g t o a s s i g

n a b u r d e n o f p r o o f

. ”

Id. at 823.

[ ¶ 9 ] I n e a c h c a s e

, t h e c o u r t h a d a s s i g n e d t h e b u r d e

n o f p e r s u a s i o n to the State. We

a p p r o v e d o f t h a t a l l o c a t i o n o f t h e b u r d e n

, e x p l a i n i n g a s f

o l l o w s :

The phrase “ burden of proof ” is applied to two related,

but different, concepts which occur in connection with pre

trial hearings. The burd en of producing evidence is assigned

to one party or the other and, likewise, the burden of

persuasion is assigned to one party or the other. T he

interrelation and dynamics of these concepts is described in 1

CHRISTOPHER B. MUELLER & LAIRD C.

K I R K P A T R I C K

, FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 62, at 301 (2d

ed. 1994):

T o s a y t h a t a p a r t y b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f

p r o d u c i n g e v i d e n c e i s t o s a y s h e r u n s t h e r i s k o f l o s i n g

a u t o m a t i c a l l y ( o n a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s o r f o r j u d g m e n t

a s a m a t t e r o f l a w ) i f s h e d o e s n o t o f f e r s u f f i c i e n t

e v i d e n c e t o e n a b l e a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n t o f i n d i n h e r

f a v o r

. A t t h e o u t s e t

, u s u a l l y t h e p a r t y w

h o b e a r s t h e

b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n a l s o b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f

p r o d u c t i o n

. . . .

T o s a y t h a t a p a r t y b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f

p e r s u a s i o n ( o r t

h e r i s k o f n o n p e r s u a s i o n ) i s t o s a y s h e

c a n w i n o n l y i f t h e e v i d e n c e p e r s u a d e s t h e t r i e r o f t h e

e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f

a c t s t h a t s h e n e e d s i n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l

. O r d i n a r i l y t h a t m e a n s t h a t s h e w i n s o n l y i f

, o n t h e

b a s i s o f t h e e v

i d e n c e

, t h e f

a c t s s e e m m o r e l i k e l y t r

u e

t h a n n o t

. P e r h a p s b e c a u s e t h i s b u r d e n o p e r a t e s a t t h e end of trial, courts often say it never “ shifts. ”

(Footnote omitted.)5 I n b o t h o f t h e s e c a s e s , t

h e S t a t e w a s a s

s i g n e d t h e b u r d e n o f

p e r s u a d i n g t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t e d t h e f a c t o r s j u s t i f y i n g t h e t r i a l o f t h e j u v e n i l e i n d

i s t r i c t c o u r t

. T h e

b u r d e n o f p r o d u c i n g e v i d e n c e a p p r

o p r i a t e l y i s a s s i g

n e d t o t h e

party seeking relief. In Pappan ’ s case, that was the

p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r

n e y w h o m o v e d t o t r a n s f e r f r o m j uvenile

court to district court. In the case of Hansen, that b urden of

producing evidence belonged to Hansen who moved to

transfer the case from district court to juvenile court.

W e r e i t e r a t e t h a

t

, i n b o t h o f t h e s e p r e

- t r i a l h e a r i n g s

,

t h e c o u r t a n d t h e p a r t i e s c l a r i f

i e d t h e b u r d e

n o f p e r s u a s i o n

p r i o r t o t h e e n d o f t

h e r e s p e c t i v

e h e a r i n g s

.

I d

. a t 8 2 3

- 2 4 ( e m

p h a s i s a d d e d )

.

[ ¶ 1 0 ] JB’s c a s e i s s i m

i l a r t o M r

. H a n s e n ’ s

, i n t h a t c r i m i n a l c h a r g

e s w e r e f i l e d i n t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t a n d t h e m o t i o n f o r t r a n s f e r t o j u v e n i l e c o u r t w a s d e n i e d

. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e

, the record does not in d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e w a s a n y d i s c u s s i o n b e t w e e n t h e c o u r t a n d t h e

p a r t i e s r e g

a r d i n g t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f

. T h e r e c o r d r e f

l e c t s t h a t J B

presented his evidence first. Th at is consistent with our statement in Hansen t h a t t h e

“ b u r d e n o f p r o d u c i n g evidence appropriately is assigned to the party seeking relief. ”

Id

. 2 I n i t s w r i t t e n d e c i s i o n

, h o w e v

e r

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p l a c e d t h e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n

s q u a r e l y o n J B

. W e e s t a b l i s h e d i n H a n s e n t h a t t h e b u r

d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n i n t r a n s f e r

m o t i o n s i s a s s i g

n e d t o t h e S t a t e

. I

d

. a t 8 2 4

. The district court’s failure to assign t h e

burden of persuasion to the S tate in this case was error.

[ ¶ 1 1 ] The State contends that the district court’s decision shou l d b e a f f i r m e d f o r t w o principal reasons. First, the State as s e r t s t h a t J B d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e b u r d e n o f

p e r s u a s i o n a s s i g

n e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

, a n d t h e r e f o r e w a i v e d h i s o b j e c t i o n

. T h e S t a t e did not cite any authority indicating that the correct allocation of the b u r d e n o f p r o o f c a n

be waived. Our cases invol ving w a i v e r t e n d t o d e a l w i t h t h e w a i v e r o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a

l

2 Many commentators and courts, including this Court, have defined the term bur d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n i n

v a r i o u s w a y s

. F o r e x a m p l e

, i n a d d i t i o n t o o u r e x p l a n a t i o n i n H

a n s e n

, w e h a v e s a i d t

h a t t h e b u r d e n o f

p r o d u c t i o n “ is also known as the burden of producing evidence or going forward with the evidence. The

burden involves the obligation of a party to present, at the appropriate time, evidence of sufficient

substance on the issue involved to permit the fact finder to act upon it. ” Joyner v. State , 2002 WY 174,

¶ 18 , 58 P.3d 331, 337 (Wyo. 2002) . Rather than attempting another definition h e r e

, w e w i l l m e r e l y

clarify that the party bearing the burden of production is the party that will lose if he produces no evidence to support his assertion. See generally John T. McNaughton, Burden of Production of Evidence:

A Function of a Burden of Pe rsuasion , 68 Harvard L. Rev. 1382 (1955).6

r i g h t s

. E

. g

. , C

r a f t v

. S t a t e

, 2 0 1 1 W

Y 1 4 2

, ¶ 12

, 262 P.3d 1253, 1256 (Wyo. 2011)

(waiver of right to counsel); Barker v. State , 2005 WY 20, ¶ 16

, 106 P.3d 297, 301 ( W y o

. 2005) (waiver of right to testify); Bush v. State , 2003 WY 156 , ¶ 6, 79 P.3d 1178, 1181

(Wyo. 2003) (waiver of rig ht to appeal).

[ ¶ 1 2 ] M o r e o v

e r

, i n C r a f t

, B a r k e r

, B u s h

, a

n d o t h e r c a s e s

, w e h a v

e c o n s i s t e n t l y indicated

t h a t w a i v e r s m u s t b e k n o w i n g a n d v

o l u n t a r y t o b e v

a l i d

. T h e r e i s n o indication in this

c a s e t h a t J B m a d e a k

n o w i n g a n d v

o l u n t a r y w a i v

e r

. The record reflects that the issue was

not discussed by either party in their pleadings or oral arguments, or by the district court

u n t i l i t i s s u e d i t s o r d e r

. U n t i l t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s s u e d i t s d e c i s i o n

, J B had no knowledge

o f h o w t h e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n w a s b e i n g a l l o c a t e d

. T h e S tate relies upon a brief

e x c h a n g e d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g t o s u p p o r t i t s c l a i m o f w a i v

e r

. A t o n e p o i n t i n t h e h e a r i n g

,

t h e p r o s e c u

t o r a s s e r t e d t h a

t J B “ h a s g

o t t h e b u r d e

n o f p e r s u a s i o n t o d a y

. ” H o w e v e r

, t h a t

was in the broader c ontext of an objection to JB ’s attempt to c a l l t h e S t a t e ’ s e x p e r t a s a

witness. In context, the prosecutor’s brief reference to the burden of persuasion was n o t

sufficient to demonstrate that JB voluntarily and knowingly waived the issue.

[ ¶ 1 3 ] S e c o n d

, t h e S t a

t e asserts that where “ W

y o m i n g s t a t u t e s d o n o t a s s i g n e i t h e r p a r t y

the burden of persuasion, this Court has held that it ‘may be judic i a l l y o r l e g i s l a t i v e l y assigned. ’” Hansen

, 904 P.2d a t 823

. “ I n t h i s c a s e

, ” t h e S t a t e c o n t i n u e s

, “ t h e d i s t r i c t

court’s decision letter showed that it assigned JB the burden of persuasion

– a s t h i s C o u r t

allows it to do.” O ur statement in Hansen t h a t b u r d e n s m a y b e j u d i c i a l l y o r l e g i s l a t i v e l y assigned meant t hat if t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d o e s n o t a s s i g

n a b u r d e

n

, a c o u r t m a y d o s o

. B e c a u s e t h e W

y o m i n g J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t d i d n o t a s s i g

n b u r d e n s o f p r o o f l e g i s l a t i v e l y

, we did so judicially, placing the burden of persuasion i n motions to transfer on the State

. Cont rary to the State’s argument, o nce this Court has judicially a s s i g n e d a b u r d e n o f

persuasion, district courts may not disregard that precedent and reassign the burden o n a

case

- by

- case basis.

[ ¶ 1 4 ] B e c a u s e t h e i s s u e o f t h e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n i s d i s p o s i t i v e

, w e n e e d not resolve

J B ’ s o t h e r i s s u e s

. M o s t o f t h e r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s m a y b e f a i r l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s o b

j e c t i o n s

t o t h e w a y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e v a l u a t e d t h e s t a t u

t o r y f a c t o r s s e t f

o r t h i n W y o

. S t a t

. A

n n

. § 1 4

- 6

- 2 3 7 (

b )

. T h e w e i g

h t t o b e g i v

e n t h e s e f

a c t o r s i s a matter “ w i t h i n t h e s o u n d

discretion of the court .” Hansen , 904 P.2d at 824

. B e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l n e e d t o

re

- weigh these factors on remand, i t serves little purpose to review how it weighed the m previously.

[ ¶ 1 5 ] O n e i s s u e r a i s e d b y J B

, h o w e v e r

, d e s e r v e s f u r t h e r c o m

m e n t

. One of the statutory

f a c t o r s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d w h e n d e c i d i n g a m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r i s t h e “ s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e

a l l e g e d o f f e n s e t o t h e c o m m

u n i t y a n d w

h e t h e r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e c o m m u n i t y r e q u i r e d

waiver .” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14

- 6

- 2 37(b)(i). Four separate times in its decision, t h e

district court repeated that “ T h e r e a r e n o c r i m e s m o r e s e r i o u s t h a n ‘ v i o l e n t f e l o n y ’ c r i m e s in Wyoming.” In his brief, JB asserts that :7 T h e p r o b l e m p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t ’ s r e p e a t e d

s t a t e m e n t that “t here are no crimes more serious than ‘violent

felony’ crimes” is that it has become a conclusion of law

overwhelming all other considerations. It is also that the

court has stopped assessing the alleged conduct of [JB] and

replaced that with an as sessment of the statutes he is alleged

to have violated with that conduct.

[ ¶ 1 6 ] We note again that the weight to be given the statutory factors is within the sound

d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

. H owever, the seriousness of the alleged offense is only

o n e o f m a n y s t a t u t o r y f

a c t o r s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d when deciding a motion to transfer a case

f r o m d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o j u v e n i l e c o u r t

. U

n d u e w e i g

h t s h o u l d n o t b e g i v

e n t o a n y single

f a c t o r

. Wyoming’s Juvenile Justice Act provides that cases “ i n w h i c h t h e m i n o r h a s

a ttained the age of fourteen (14) years and is charged with a violent felony” m a y b e brought either in the district court or in the juvenile court. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14

- 6

- 203(f)(iv). This is a clear signal from the W y o m i n g L e g i s l a t u r e t h a

t n o t a l l m

i n o r s

f ourteen or older who are charged with violent felonies should be prosecuted i n a d u l t

criminal court. The f

a c t t h a t a m i n o r i s c h a r g

e d w i t h v i o l e n t f

e l o n i e s d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e

hi s case from being adjudicated in juvenile court.

[ ¶ 1 7 ] The district court’s denial o f J B ’ s m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r h i s c a s e f

r o m d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s r e v

e r s e d

. T h e c a s e i s r e m a n d e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r proceedings consistent with this opinion.