D A 0 9

- 0 3 0 4

I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U

R T O F T H E S T

A T E O F M O N T

A N A

2 0 1 0 M T 9 N

S T A T E O F M O N T

A N A

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l e e

,

v

.

M

. J

. V

. , I I I

,

D e f

e n d a n t a n d A

p p e l l a n t

.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,

I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f Y e l l o w s t o n e

, C a

u s e N o

. D C 2 0 0 8

- 5 4 0

H o n o r a b l e R u s s e l l C

. F a g g

, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

N a n c y G

. S c h w a r

t z

, N G S c h w a r

t z L a w

, P L L C

, B i l l i

n g s

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

H o n

. S t e v e B u l l o c k

, M o n t a n a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, T a m m y K

. P l u b e l l

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

n e y G e n e r a l

, H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

D e n n i s P a x i

n o s

, Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t

y A t t o r n e y

, S c o t t D

. T

w i t o

, D e p u t y

C o u n t y A t t o r n e y

, B i l l i n g s

, M o n t a n a

S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f

s : J a n u a r y 7

, 2 0 1 0

D e c i d e d : J a n u a r

y 1 9

, 2 0 1 0

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k January 19 20102

Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 P u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n I

, P a r a g r a p h 3 ( d )

, M o n

t a n a S u p r e m e C o u r t 1 9 9 6 I

n t e r n a l

O p e r a t i n g R

u l e s

, a s a m e n d e d i n 2 0 0 6

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

c i t e d a s p r e c e d e n t

. I

t s h a l l b e f

i l e d a s a p u b l i c d o c

u m e n t w i t h 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 a n d i t s c a s e t i t l e

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

t h i s C o u r t ' s q u a r t e r

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

Montana Reports.

¶ 2 M

. J

. V

. , I I I ( M

. J

. V

. ) a p p e a l s a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e T h i r t e e n t h

J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t

, Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y

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

Youth Co urt. We affirm.

¶ 3 M

. J

. V

. r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s o n a p p e a l w h i c h w e h a v

e r e s t a t e d a s f

o l l o w s :

¶4 1

. D i d t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n w

h e n i t d e t e r m

i n e d t h a t M

. J

. V

. ’ s

c a s e s h o u l d r e m a i n i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g t r a n s f

e r r e d t o Y o u

t h C o u r t ?

¶ 5 2. S h o u l d t h i s C o u r t i n v o k e p l a i n e r r o r r e v

i e w o f M

. J

. V

. ’ s c l a i m t h a t § 4 1

- 5

- 2 0 6

,

M C A

, v i o l a t e s d u e p r

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

h e S t a t e t h e

burden of proving whether a yo uth’s case should remain in district court?

¶ 6 3

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

p l i c a t e d o u b l e j e o p a r

d y p r i n c i p l e s t h e r e b y

p r o h i b i t i n g t h e S t a t e f

r o m p r o c e e d i n g w i t h a d j u d i c a t i o n o r p r

o s e c u t i o n f

o l l o w i n g a

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

Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 7 O n S e p t e m

b e r 2 2

, 2 0 0 8

, t h e

n 1 6

- y e a r

- o l d M

. J

. V

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

t w o f e l o n y c o u n t s o f B u r g

l a r y a n d o n e f

e l o n y c o u n t o f A

r s o n

. T h e A f

f i d a v i t a n d M o t i o n3

f o r L e a v e t o F i l e I

n f o r m a t i o n a l l e g

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

h t o f S e p t e m

b e r 1 8

, 2 0 0 8

, M

. J

. V

. ,

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

, u n l a w f u l l y e n t e r e d a n d s e t f

i r e t o t h e H u n t l e y P r o

j e c t

H i g h S c h o o l i n W o r d e n

, M o n t a n a

. T h e s c h o o l w a s c o m p l e t e l y d e s t r o y e d b y t h e f i r e

.

M

. J

. V

. , w h o h a s s i g

n i f i c a n t l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s

, s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d a n o t g

u i l t y p l e a t o

all three counts.

¶ 8 O n M a r c h 1 6 a n d 1 7

, 2 0 0 9

, t h e p a r t i e s a p p e a r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g

t o d e t e r m

i n e w h e t h e r 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 b a c k t o Y o u t

h C o u r t

. E v

i d e n c e

p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t M

. J

. V

. w a s a s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e

n t

, a n d

a l t h o u g h h e w a s i n h i g

h s c h o o l

, h e r e a d a

t o n l y a s e c o n d

- g

r a d e l e v e l

. H e w a s b o t h

c o g n i t i v e l y d e l a y e d a n d l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d

. E v i d e n c e a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t M

. J

. V

. a n d h i s

t h r e e a c c o m

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

a n d a l i z e v

a r i o u s o f f i c e s

, t o s t e a l

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

, a n d e v

e n t u a l l y

, to set fire to the school

.

¶ 9 A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e t r a n s f e r h e a r i n g

, t h e J

u d g e o r a l l y p r o n o u

n c e d h i s d e c i s i o n

t h a t t h e c a s e w o u l d r e m a i n i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. T h i s d e c i s i o n w a s f o l l o w e d b y a w

r i t t en

order dated March 25, 2009. M.J.V. now appeal s the Dist rict Court’s decision.

¶ 1 0 H a v i n g r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n a n d t h e p a r t i e s ’

a r g u m e n t s o n a p p e a l

, w e h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t o d e c i d e t h i s c a s e p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n I

,

P a r a g r a p h 3 ( d ) ( v

) o f o u r 1 9 9 6 I

n t e r n a l O p e r a

t i n g R u l e s

, a s a m e n d e d i n 2 0 0 6

, w h i c h

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

.

Discussion

¶ 1 1 As a preliminary matter, M

. J

. V

. a r g u e s t h a t h i s a p p e a l o f t h e 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 i s a n a p p e a

l a b l e i s s u e a n d n o t a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y o n e b e c a u s e a n y4

s u b s e q u e n

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

e c t s p r e s e n t i n t h e t r a n s f e r

p r o c e e d i n g s

. T h e S t a t e

, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d

, w

h i l e n o t w a i v i n g t h e r i g

h t t o a r g u e i n f u t u r e

c a s e s t h a t t r a n s f

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

t o r y a n d

, t h e r e f

o r e

, n o t a p p e a l a b l e

, c o n c e d e s t

h i s

i s s u e o n t h e f

a c t s o f t h i s case only and does not argue against appellate review of the

d e n i a l o f M

. J

. V

. ’ s m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r t o Y o u t h C o u r t

.

I s s u e 1

.

¶ 1 2 D i d t h e D i s t

r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t

s d i s c r e t i o n w

h e n i t d e t e r

m i n e d t h a t M

. J

. V

. ’ s c a s e

s h o u l d r e m a i n i n D i s t

r i c t C o u r t r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g t

r a n s f e r r e d t o Y o u t h C o u r t ?

¶ 1 3 This Court reviews a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n a s t o w h e t h e r a j u v

e n i l e s h o u l d b e

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

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

. State v.

W hiteman

, 2 0 0 4 M T 1 5

, ¶ 1 0

, 3 2 5 M o n t

. 3 5 8

, 1 0 6 P

. 3 d 5 4 3 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. S p i n a , 1999

M T 1 1 3

, ¶ 1 2

, 2 9 4 M o n t

. 3 6 7

, 9 8 2 P

. 2 d 4 2 1 )

. I n a d d i t i o n

, w e r e v

i e w t h e s p e c i f

i c

f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t r e l i e d o n b y t h e l o w e r court in making this decision to determine whether

those findings are clearly erroneous, and we review a lower c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w t o

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

. Whiteman , ¶ 10.

¶ 1 4 M o n t a

n a ’ s Y o u t h C o u r

t A c t ( T i t l e 4 1

, c h a p t e r 5

, M C A ) p r o v i d e s t h a t w

h e n t h e

y o u t h c h a r g

e d i s 1 6 y e a r s o f a g

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

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

l a r y

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

y o u t h c o u r

t u n l e s s i t f

i n d s

, 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

( a ) a y o u t h c o u r

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

o f c o m m u n i t y p r o t e c t i o n ;

( b ) t h e n a t u r e o f t h e o f

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

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

c o u r t ; a n d

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

h i f t h e m a t t e r w a s

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

t h c o u r t

.5

S e c t i o n 4 1

- 5

- 2 0 6 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( i i )

, ( v i i ) a n d ( 3 )

, M C A

,

¶ 1 5 I n t h e c a s e sub judice , the District Court heard testimony from M.J.V.’s mother;

several of M.J.V.’s teachers and guidance counselors; the Huntley Project High School

principal; two psychologists; two youth probation officers; one of M.J.V.’s

c o

- defendants; a fire inv estigator, and two sheriff’s officers, before concluding that

community safety, the nature of M.J.V.’s offenses, and M.J.V.’s best interests, all

weighed against transferring this case back to Youth Court.

¶ 1 6 As to the f

i r s t o f t h e t h r e e r e q

u i r e m e n t s i n § 4 1

- 5

- 2 0 6 ( 3 )

, M C A

, c o m m u n i t y

p r o t e c t i o n

, b e c a

u s e t h e o p t i o n s a v

a i l a b l e t h r o u g h Y o u t h C o u r t c o u l d n o t p r o v i d e t h e t y p e

o f s u p e r v i s i o n t h a t M

. J

. V

. n e e d e d

, t r a n s f e r r i n g M

. J

. V

. t o Youth C ourt did not meet the

requirement of community protection. U n d e r M o n t a

n a ’ s s t a t u t o r y s c h e m e

, a y o u t h

c a n n o t r e m a i n i n a j u v

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

n s 1 8

. S e e

§ 4 1

- 5

- 1 0 3 ( 4 5 )

, M C A

. M

. J

. V

. w a s n e a r l y 1 8 a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r a n s f e r h e a r i n g

. T h e

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

n d j u v e n i l e correctional professionals

established that when a youth court has less tha n a year to work with a juvenile offender

before that offender’s 18 th birthday, there are very limited options the youth court can

provide. In M.J.V.’s case, assuming the court had tran sferred this case to Youth Court

,

t h a t c o u r t w o u l d h a v

e h a d l e s s t h a n n i n e m o n t h s t o w o r k w i t h M

. J

. V

. b e f o r e h e

t u r n e d 1 8

. 1

1 I n f a c t

, M

. J

. V

. h a s n o w t u r

n e d 1 8

. E v

e n i f w e w e r e t o 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

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

. J

. V

. ’ s m o t i o n

, t r a n s f e r t o Y o u t h C o u r t i s n o l o n g

e r

a n o p t i o n

.6

¶ 1 7 While no one advocated that M.J.V. be incarcerated, Dr. Robert Page, a clinical

psychologist who had evaluated M.J.V

. a t t h e S t a t e ’ s r e q u e s t

, t e s t i f

i e d t h a t M

. J

. V

. n e e d e d

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

u c t u r e d i n t e r v

e n t i o n w i t h c l e a r l y i d e n

t i f i e d b e h a v i o r a l e x

p e c t a t i o n s a n d

c l e a r c o n s e q

u e n c e s i f M

. J

. V

. c h o s e n o t t o m e e t t h o s e e x p e c t a t i o n s

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

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

a i l a b l e i n Y o u

t h C o u r t c o u l d n o t p r

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

u c t u r e

.

¶ 1 8 A s t o t h e s e c o n d r e q u i r e m e n t i n § 4 1

- 5

- 2 0 6 ( 3 )

, M C A

, t h e n a t u r e o f t h e o f

f e n s e

,

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o b s e r v

e d t h a t t h i s w a s n o t a n a l l e g a t i o n t h a t M

. J

. V

. s e t s o m e t h i n g s m a l l

on fire causing minima l damage ; rather, the Huntley Project High School was completely

demolished as a result of M.J.V.’s and his accomplice’s conduct. Moreover, the State

pointed out that M.J.V.’s conduct was far beyond high school mischief. A community

lost its high school as a result of M.J.V.’s actions, and those called upon to fight the fire

risked their lives to do so.

¶ 1 9 T h e t h i r d a n d f

i n a l r e q u i r e m e n t i n § 4 1

- 5

- 2 0 6 ( 3 )

, M C A

, r e q u i r e s a d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o

c o n s i d e r w

h e t h e r i t w o u l d b e i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e y o u t h i f t he matter was

prosecuted in youth court. I n t h i s c a s e

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t M

. J

. V

. ’ s b e s t

c h a n c e o f l i v

i n g a p r o d u c t i v

e

, c r i m e

- f r e e l i f e l a y w i t h i n t h e p r o g

r a m s a v a i l a b l e t h r o u g

h

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. D r

. P a g e r e c o m m e n d e d a v e r y s t r u c t u r e d s e t t i n g f

o r M

. J

. V

. s u c h a s

b o o t c a m p o r t h e I

n t e n s i v e S u p e r v i s i o n P r o g

r a m

, n e i t h e r o f w

h i c h w e r e a v a i l a b l e t o

M.J.V. through Youth C ourt due to M.J.V.’s age.

¶ 2 0 I t i s m a n i f e s t o n t h e f

a c e o f t h e b r i e f

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

o r e u s t h a t t

h i s a p p e a l i s

w i t h o u t m e r i t

. T h e r e c o r d clearly supports the Distric t C o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t b e c a u s e o f

t h e s e r i o u s n a t

u r e o f t h e o f f e n s e s

, a l o n g

e r t e r m a n d m o r e s t r

u c t u r e d e n v i r o n m e n t t h a

n7

what was available to M.J.V. through Youth Court would not only be in M.J.V.’s best

inter ests, but would better serve the interests of community protection

.

¶ 2 1 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying

M

. J

. V

. ’ s m o t i o n t o t r a

n s f e r t h i s c a s e t o Y o u t h C o u r t

.

I s s u e 2

.

¶22 Should this Court invoke plain error r e v i e w o f M

. J

. V

. ’ s c l a i m t h a t § 4 1

- 5

- 2 0 6

, M C A

, v i o l a t e s d u e p r o c e s s b e c a u s e i t d o e

s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o c a t e t o t h e S

t a t e t h e burden of proving whether a yo uth’s case should remain in district court?

¶ 2 3 M.J.V. contends that the District Court violated his ri ght to due process when it

p l a c e d t h e b u r

d e n t o p r o v

e t h e s t a t u t o r y f a c t o r s i n § 4 1

- 5

- 2 0 6

, M C A

, o n M

. J

. V

. r a t h e r

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

. M

. J

. V

. a c k

n o w l e d g e s t h a t h e f

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

D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, b u

t

, c i t i n g S t a t e v

. F i n l e y

, 2 7 6 M o n

t

. 1 2 6

, 9 1 5 P

. 2 d 2 0 8 ( 1 9 9 6 )

, h e a s s e r t s

t h a t p l a i n e r r o r r e v

i e w i s a p p r o p r i a t e h e r e b e c a u s e a f a i l u r e t o r e s o l v

e t h i s i s s u e w o u l d

result in a manifest miscarriage of justice or would compromise the integrity of the

judicial process

.

¶ 2 4 We decline to engage in a pl ain error review of M.J.V.’s due process claim

b e c a u s e a m e r e a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h i s C o u r t ’ s f

a i l u r e t o e n g

a g e i n p l a i n e r r o r r e v

i e w m a y

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

e s t m i s c a r r i a g

e o f j u s t i c e i s n o t s u f

f i c i e n t t o i m

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

o r

d o c t r i n e

. S t

a t e v

. M a c k r i l l , 2 0 0 8 M T 2 9 7

, ¶ 4 8

, 3 4 5 M o n t

. 4 6 9

, 1 9 1 P

. 3 d 4 5 1 ; see also

State v. Rovin , 2009 MT 16, ¶ 30, 349 Mont. 57, 201 P.3d 780 (wherein we also declined

to exercise plain error review of a claimed error be cause the d e f e n d a n t ’ s m e r e a s s e r t i o n

t h a t o u r f a i l u r e t o e

n g a g e i n p l a i n e r r

o r r e v i e w m a y r e s u l t i n a m a n i f e s t m i s c a r r i a g e o f

j u s t i c e f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y M

. R

. A

p p

. P

. 1 2 ( 1 ) ( f

) )

.8 Issue 3.

¶ 2 5 D o e s a t r

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

p l i c a t e d o u b l e j e o

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

g

t h e S t a t e f r o m p r o c e e

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

o l l o w i n g a t r a n s f e r

h e a r i n g ?

¶ 2 6 M

. J

. V

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

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

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

, t h e S t a t e i s

n o w p r e c l u d e d b y d o u

b l e j e o p a r d y f

r o m b r i n g i n g a n y f

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

. J

. V

.

i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. I

n s t e a d

, M

. J

. V

. a r g

u e s t h a t t h i s c a s e s h o u l d b e r e m a n d e d t o Y o u t h

Court for sentencing in accordance with the Youth Court Act.

¶ 2 7 T h e S t a t e a r g

u e s t h a t t h e r e i s n o m e r i t t o M

. J

. V

. ’ s c l a i m t h a t a t r a n s f e r h e a r i n g

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

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

a d j u d i c a t i o n o f g

u i l t

. F u r t h e r

, t

h e S t a t e p o i n

t s o u t t h a t M

. J

. V

. d i d n o t o b

j e c t t o a n y o f t h e

e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a

t t h e t r a n s f

e r h e a r i n g

.

¶ 2 8 “[I]t is a well

- established maxim of law that ‘acquiescence in error takes away the

right of objecting to it.’ ” State v. Jackson

, 2 0 0 9 M T 4 2 7

, ¶ 6 2

, 3 5 4 M o n t

. 6 3

,

_ _ P

. 3 d

_ _

( q u o t i n g State v. Malloy, 2004 MT 377, ¶ 11, 325 Mont. 86, 103 P.3d 1064 ; § 1

- 3

- 2 0 7

,

M C A )

. A c c o r d i n g

l y

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

.

¶ 2 9 A f f i r m e d

.

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N

W e c o n c u r :

/ S / P A T R I C I A O

. C O T T E R

/ S / W

. W I L L I

A M L E A P H A R T

/ S / M I C H A E L E W H E A T

/ S / J I M R I C E