### IN THE SIJPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN THE MATTER OF KEITH WAYNEWOOD, a Youth under the age ofEighteen.

C. - I -. ITI U APPEAL FROM: TheYouth Court of the Eleventh Judicial If$~tri~, -

### - In and for the Countv of Flathead, I. I.: 17.1

.' TheHonorableMichael H. Keedy,Judgepres&d??ng?3 0 _yr: C 4 COUNSEL OF RECORD: m 4 ForAppellant: Stephen J. Nardi; Sherlock & Mardi,Kalispell,Montana

For Respondent:
Honorable Marc Racicot,Attorney General, Helena,Montana George Schunk,Assistant Attorney General, Helena,Montana Ted 0. Lympus, Flathead County Attorney,Kalispell,Montana

Submitted: November 15, 1988 Decided: February 14,1989

0 Filed:

X -- Clerk

s

# -Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., del-j-veredthe Opinj-onof the Court.

Pursuant to 5 41-5-206(3),MCA, the youth court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, ordered the case of Keith Wavne Wood, a youth, transferred to District Court. The youth appeals the transfer, arguing that S 41-5-206(3), MCA, is unconstitutional. We affirm the District Court. The following issues were raised on appeal. 1. Is § 41-5-206(3),MCA, unconstitutionalbecause it: (a) denies a youth's right todueprocess? (b) denies ayouth's right to equalprotection? (c) violates the separation of powers doctrine of the Montana Constitution? Keith Wayne Wood, a youth, was arrested on March 30, 1988 for two counts of deliberate homicide. He was brought before the youth court on March 31, 1988 for the purpose of appointinghim a counsel and determining whether he should be detained. OnApril 4, 1988, the county attorney for Flathead County filed amotion pursuant to 5 41-5-206(3),MCA, in the youth court to transfer the case to the DistrictCourt. Wood appeared before the youth court onMay 6, 1988, at which time he conceded he was 16 years old at the time of the wrongful. acts alleged in the petition and, if true, the acts alleged would constitute two counts of deliberate homicide under 45-5-102,MCA. On May 10, 1988, the youth court, by written order, granted the county attorney's motion and transferred jurisdiction over the matter of Keith Wayne Wood to the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County. In its findingsof fact, the youth court found that at the time of the alleged wronqful actsWood was 16vears ofage, the acts, if true,would constitutedeliberate homicide

as defined in 45-5-102,MCA, and probable cause existed to conclude thatWood committed the alleged acts. In granting the order, the youth court relied. on 5 41-5-206(3), MCA,which states that The court shall grant the motion to t-ransferif the youth was 16 years old or older at the time of the conductalleged tobe unlawful and theunlawful act would constitute deliberate homicide as defined in 45-5-102, mitigated deliherate homicide as defined in 45-5-103, or the attempt, as defined in 45-4-103, of either deliberate or mitigated deliberate homicide if the act had been committed by an adult. The youth court found this statute rationally based upon the age of the offenders and the seriousness of the offenses. The youth court thus found that the statute does not create an unreasonable age classification and therefore does not violate a youth's right to due process nor to equal prot.ection. The youth court also found that the statute does not violate the constitutionalguarantee of the separationof legislative and judicial powers, but rather found that redefining the Youth Court Act is a valid exercise of legislativeauthority. Wood appeals the transfer to District Court, presenting three constitutional issues for review. The first issue raised on appeal is whether 5 41-5-206(3), MCA, denies a youth's constitutional right tc? dueprocess. One of the purposes of the Montana Youth CourtAct, SS 41-5-101 through 41-5-809, MCA (1987), is to substitute rehabilitation in lieu of punishment for youths who have violated the law. Section 41-5-102(2),MCA. To further this purpose, the youth court is granted exclusive original. jurisdiction ofyouths who have violated any lawother than a traffic or fish and game lawprior to having reached 18yearsof age. Section 41-5-203(l), MCA. The Act, however, also pro~ridesfor a youth's transfer to district court upon a motion of the county attorney in certain instances. Section 41-5-206,MCA. Wood argues that § 41-5-206(3),MCA, isunconstitutional because the provision denies ayouth, aged 16 years or older and who has allegedly committed or attempted to commit deliberate or mitigated deliberate homicide, the right to a hearingwhereby a youth court considers mitigating factors in its determination of whether to transfer the youth to district court. In particular, Wood argues that § 41-5-206

### (1)

### ,MCA, grants these youths a hearing to determine whether to transfer them to district court, hut that S 41-5-206(3), MCA, dictates the outcome of the hearing by mandating the youth court to grant the county attorney's motion to transfer theseyouths. In asserting this argument, Wood relies upon a United States Supreme Court decision, Kent v. United States (19661, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84. In Kent, a 16 year old youth from the District of Columbiawas chargedwith housebreaking, robbery, and rape. Before transferring a youth aged 16 years or older from youth court to district court, the District of Columbia statute required a "full investigation." The youth court transferred jurisdiction of the youth to district court without a hearing or any investigation. Kent, 383 U.S. at 543-48, 86 S.Ct. at 1048-51, 16 L.Ed.2d at 87-90. The Supreme Court stated that the statute "assumes procedural regularity sufficient in the particular circumstancesto satisfy the basic requirements of due process and fairness, as well as compliance with the statutory requirement of a 

### 'full investigation.

### '" Kent, 383 U.S. at 553, 86 S.Ct. at 1053, 16 L.Ed.2d at 93. The Court thereforeheld that procedural dueprocess is requiredby theF0urteent.h Amendment when transferring a youth from youth court to district court. Kent, 383 U.S. at 557-63, 86 S.Ct.

The United States Supreme Court in Rreed v. Jones (1975),421U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44L.Ed.2d 346, however, recognized that ithas never attempted to prescribe criteria for, or the nature and quantum of evidence thatmust support, a decision to transfer a juvenile for trial in adult court. We requireonly that, whatever the relevant criteria, and whatever the evidence demanded, a State determine whether it wants to treat a juvenile within the juvenile-court system before entering upon a proceeding that may result in an adjudicatj-onthat he has violated a criminal law and in a substantialdeprivation of liberty,rather than subject him to the expense,delay, strain,and embarrassment

### of two such proceedings. Breed, 421 1J.S. at 537-38, 95 S.Ct. at 1790, 44 L.Ed.?d at 360. Subsequent United States' Court 

### of Appeals decisions have held that a state's treatment of youths outside of the criminal system isnot an inherent rightandmay be redefined

or restricted by state legislation, so long as no arhitrarv

or discriminatory classification is in~~olved.Woodard 

### v. Wainwright (5th Cir. 1977), 556 F.2d 781, 785,cert. denied, 434U.S. 1088, 98 S.Ct. 1285, 55 L.Ed.2d 794 (1978);see also -- IJnited States v. Quinones (1st Cir. 1975), 516 ~.2d 1309, 1311,cert. denied, 423U.S. 852, 96 S.Ct. 97,46 L.Ed.2d 76; Cox v. United States (4th Cir. 1973), 473 F.2d 334, 336, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 869, 94 S.Ct. 183, 38 L.Ed.2d 116. Wood recognizes that a youth's treatment outside of the criminal system may be redefined or restricted by the state legislature, hut asserts that under S 41-5-206(1)

### , MCA, the legislature qranted all youths a hearing before being transferred to djstrict court and. that 5 41-5-206(3),MCA,dictates the outcomeof thathearing foryouths aged 16 vears

or older and who have committed or attempted to commit deliberate or mitigated deliberate homicide. We disagree withWood's basic assertion. Section 41-5-206(1)(a)(i)

### ,MCA, provides that youths, aged 12 years or older and who have committed sexual intercourse without consent or who have committed or attempted to commit deliberate or mitigated deliberate homicide, may be transferred,after a hearina, to district court by motion of the county attorney. Section 41-5-206(3), MCA, however,provides that youths aged 16years

or older who have allegedly committed or attempted to commit

one of these offenses--deliberate or mitigated deliberate homicide--must he transferred todistrict court upon amotion -- by the county attorney. This Court first recognizes that S 41-5-206, MCA, is presumed constitutional and that the party attacking the statute, Wood, has a significant burden in proving its invalidity. T & W Chevrolet 

### v. Darvial (19821, 196 Mont. 287, 292, 641 P.2d 1368, 1370. We hold that Wood failed to meet this burden. When interpreting statutes, this Court must adhere to the legislators' intent. State v. Hubbard

(1982),200Mont. 1.06, 110-11, 649 P.2d 1331, 1333. Prior to 1987, S 41-5-206, MCA, required a hearing for all youths before transferring them to district court. The legislature amended the statute in 1987 

### by enacting S 41-5-206(3), MCA. This provision provides for automatic transferofyouths aged 16 years or older and who have allegedly committed or attempted to commit deliberate or mitigated deliberate homicide. The presumption exists that, by adopting an amendment to a statute, the legislature intended to make some change in existing law. Foster v. Kovich (1983), 207 Mont. 139, 144-45, 673 P.2d 1239, 1243. This Court must also, if possible, give effect to all of the provisions. Darb~ Spar,Ltd. v. Dept. of Revenue (Mont. 19851, 705 P.2d 111, 113, 42 St.Rep. 1262, 1264-65. We thereforehold thatS 41-5-206(3), MCA, which applies to youths aged 16 years or older,has the effect of limiting S 41-5-206(1), MCA, to youths aged 12 years or olderhut under the age of 16 years when the alleged offense isdeliberate ormitigated deliberatehomicide or the attempt of either. Section 41-5-206(3)

### ,MCA, therefore does not dictate the outcome of a hearing, since the youths who fall under this provision are not granted an initialhearing. Any other interpretation of the entire statute would render the legislature's enactment of subsection 3 of the statute meaningless. Wood was transferred fromyouth court to district court under 41-5-206(3), MCA. No procedural irregularitieswere alleged, nor were any evident in the record. Section 41-5-206(3)

## , MCA, therefore meets the minimum federal requirements and does notviolate Wood's right to dueprocess under the FourteenthAmendment. The next issue raised on appeal is whether $5 41-5-206(3),MCA, denies ayouth's right to equal protection. In asserting his equal protection argument, Wood only refers to the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. 14, 1. As previously stated, youths aged 16 years or older and who have committed

or attempted to commit deliberate or mitiqated deliberate homicide are not granted a hearing prior to transfer to district court as a result of S 41-5-206(3),MCA. Since a state's treatment ofyouthsoutside of the criminal svstem is not an inherent right and.may be redefined or restricted by state legislation, see Woodard, 556 F.2d at 785, this Court needs to determine next whether such a classification is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause 

### of the FourteenthAmendment.The United States Supreme Court recognizes three levels of scrutiny when determining whether a system o" classification found within a state statute is constitutional. The strict scrutinv analvsis,requiring the most exacting scrutiny, isappliedwhen the classification is based on an inherently suspect class--race, national origin

or al.i.enage--or when the classification infringes on a fundamentalright. See,e.g., Lovingv. ~irginia(1967),388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (race); Graham 

### v. Richardson (1971), 403 1J.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (alienage);Oyama v. California (1948),332 U.S. 633, 68 S.Ct. 269, 92 L.Ed. 249 (national origin); Shapiro 

### v. Thompson (1969),394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600

(fundamental right to travel interstate); Dunn v. ~lumstein (1972), 405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (fundamental right to vote)

# . When applying the strict scrutiny test, the governmenthas the burden of proving that the statute is justified by a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored, and no other avenues less burdensome are avail-ablein which to accomplish the objective. Dunn, 405 U.S. at 342-43, 92 S.Ct. at 1003, 31 L.Ed.2d 

### at 284-85. The intermediate level of scrutiny employed by the United States Supreme Court generally applies when classifications are based on gender or illegitimacy. See, -- e.g., Clark v. Jeter (1988), 

### -U.S. 

## , 108 S.Ct. 1910, 100 L.Ed.2d 465 (illegitimacy); Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982), 458 U.S. 718, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (gender)

# . To withstand intermediate scrutiny, theparty seeking touphold the statutory classification must show that the classification is substantially related to an important governmentalobjective. Hogan, 458 U.S. at 724, 73 S.Ct. at 3336,73 L.Ed.26 at 1098.All other classifications scrutinized under the United States Constitution are subject to theminimal rationalbasis standard of review. Under this standard, classificationsare presumed constitutionaland the party challenging the statute bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the classification is not rationally related to a legitimate state objective. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. (1981)

### , 449 U.S. 456, 464, 101 S.Ct. 715, ?24, 66 L.Ed.2d 659, 668-69, reh. denied, 450 U.S. 1027, 101 S.Ct. 1735, 68 L.Ed.2d 222. The United States Supreme Court applies this standard of review when classifications are based on economics or social welfare. Dandridge 

### v. b7illiams (1970)

### , 397 U.S. 471, 485, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1161, 25 L.Ed.2d 491, 501-02. Wood argues that 5 41-5-206(3),MCA, deprives him, and all such youths si-milarlysituated, to equal.protection by infringing on his "'fundamental right' of due process of law." In asserting this argument, Wood argues that the strict scrutiny analysis is applicabl-eand that the stat-e therefore has the burden of showing that classifying youths who haveviolated the law on thebasis of age and seriousness of the offense is justified by a compelling state interest. Wood recognizes the protection of the community as the state's interest in this matter, and then argues that classifying youths on the bases of their age and seriousness of the offense is neither rationally related to a legitimate state interest nor justified by a compelling state interest. We disagree with Wood's basic assertion thatprocedural dueprocess, asmandated by the Fourteenth Amendment, is also

a fundamental right. No support exists for this assertion. On the contrary, the United States Supreme Court has limited its recognition of fundamental rights, requiring a strict scrutiny analvsis, to interstate travel, voting, privacy, andthe rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,which includes the freedom of speech, press, religion, association and belief, and the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for redress of grievances. See, e-g., 

### - Shapiro, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600

(interstate travel); Dunn, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (voting); Stanley v. Georgia (1969), 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (privacy); widmar 17. Vincent (1981), 454 U.S. 263, 102 S.Ct. 269, 70 ~.~d.2d 440 (speech); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (1984)

### , 464 

## 11.s. 501, 1.04S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (press);Wisconsinv. Yoder (1972), 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 ~.~d.2d 15 (religion); Sheltonv. Tucker (1960), 364 U.S. 479, 81 S.Ct. 247, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (associationand belief); and Hague v. C.I.O. (1939), 307 1J.S. 496, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.E~.1423

(assemble peaceably and petition government for redress of grievances)

# . The classification found in 5 41-5-206(3),MCA, isbased

on both age and gravity of the offense. The United States Supreme Court has held that age is not a suspect class requiring a strict scrutiny analysis. MassachusettsBoard of Retirement v. Murgia (1976), 427 U.S. 307, 313-15, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2566-67, 49 L.Ed.2d 520, 524-26. The classificationis also not based on gender or illegtimacy, and therefore not subjectto an intermediate level of scrutiny. In light of the above, we hold that theproper standard of review in this case iswhether the classification found in 

### 5 41-5-206, MCA, is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Wood therefore has the burden of showing that the age and seriousness of the offense are not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brownell (1935),294 1J.S. 580, 584,55 S.Ct. 538, 540, 79 L.Ed. 1070, 1072-73. Me hold that.Wood has failed to meetthis burden. The legislative history of House Bill 470, the legislative vehicle of 

### 5 41-5-206(3), MCA, reveals that the legislature recognized the increase in the number of homicides committed 

### by today's teenagers and expressed that the passage of House Bill 470 would aid in dealins effectively with these youths. Minutes of Montana House Judiciary Committee, at 8-9 (February17, 1987). Wood bases his argument on the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. 14, S 1, and in light of the federal cases noted above, we hold that $ 41-5-206, MCA, does not violate this clause. Wood, however, does not refer to the Montana Constitution. Nonetheless, this Court reserves "the power to examine constitutional issues that involve broad public concerns to avoid future litigation on a point of law." In the Matter of N.B. (Mont. 1980), 620 P.2d 1228, 1231, 37 St.Rep. 2033., 2033. We choose to exercise this power to determine whether § 41-5-206, MCA, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Montana Constitution. In examining whether a statute is constitutional under our state Equal Protection Clause,Mont. Const. art. 11,S 4, this Court also recognizes a three tier analysis. This Court, however, has chosen not to follow the exact standards

as set forth in the United States Supreme Court's decisions. Pfostv. State (Mont.1985), 713 P.2d 495, 500-01, 42 St.Rep. 1957, 1963-64; Butte Community Union v. Lewis (Mont. 19861, 712 P.2d 1309, 1313, 43 St.Rep. 65, 70. When a fundamental right, as enumerated by the Montana Constitution, 

### is being deprived,orwhen a suspect classificationexists,this Court will apply the strict scrutiny analysis. -- Pfost, 713 P.2d at 501, 42 St.Rep. at 1964. The middle tier analysis, first developed in 

### -- Butte Community

. -- Union, is applicable when a benefit, not. foundwithin the Declaration 

### of Rights, is nonetheless lodged within the Montana Constitution. In Butte Community Union,

we held that no fundamental right to welfare exists, but. noted that Article XII, S 3(3), directed the legislature to provide necessary assistance to the misfortunate. e therefore held that in determining whether a classification found within a welfare statute is constitutional, the state must demonstrate that 1) the classificationisreasonableand 2) the state's interest in the classification is more important than the people's interest in obtaining welfare benefits. Butte Community Union, 712 P.2d at 1312-14, 43 St.Rep. at 68-71. Inother circumstances, this Court applies the rational basis analysis. - See Cottrill v. Cottrill Sodding Service (Mont. 1987), 744 P.2d 895, 897, 44 St.Rep. 1762, 1764; Godfrey v. Montana State Fish and Game Comm'n. (Mont. 1981),631P.2d 1265,1267-68, 38 St.Rep. 661, 663-65. The Montana Constitution provides that "the rights of persons under 18 years of age shall include, hut not be limited to,all the fundamental rights of this Article unless specifically precluded by laws which enhance the protection of such persons." Mont. Const. art. 11, 

### 5 15. The Equal Protection Clause of the Montana Constitution provides that "Inlo person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.

# ..." Mont. Const. art. 11,5 4. 

### No provision exists in the Montana Constitution that provides a youth with a fundamental right to be treated specially, nor are anv benefits lodged within the Montana Constitution that would provide a youth with an interest whose statutory abridgement requires something more than a rational relationship to a legitimate government objective. We thereforehold that the rational basis analysis is applicable in this case to determine whether the statute is constitutional under theMontana Constitution. As we noted above, 

### we hold that the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Other jurisdictions faced with the same issue,utilized

a rational relationship test and upheld classificationsbased

on age and seriousness of the offense. See People v. J.S.

(Ill. 1984), 469 N.E.2d 1090, 1094-95; State 

### v. Anderson (Idaho1985), 700 P.2d 76, 80; People

### v. Drayton (N.Y. 19761, 350 N.E.2d 377, 379-80; People v. Thorpe (Colo. 19821, 641 P.2d 935, 937-40. As already noted, treatmentas a juvenile is not an inherent right and the legislaturemay restrict or qualify that right. We therefore conclude that the classification found in S 41-5-206, MCA, based on age and seriousness of the offense, is rationally related to the legitimate state 

### objective of curbing homicides committed by teenagersand protecting society from theseviolent offenders underboth theUnited Statesand Montana Constitutions. The last issue raised on appeal is whether § 41-5-306, MCA, violates the separation of powers doctrine 

### of the Montana Constitution. Wood argues that the legislature is attempting to control a judicial function 

### by enacting § 41-5-206(3)

## , MCA. Specifically, Wood argues that the legislature has usurped the judiciary's power to hear and decide motions brought before it and that this violates the doctrine of separation of powers under the Montana Constitutionand must be declared invalid. We disagree. The legislature's power to create the youth courts 

### is unquestionable. The Montana Constitution provides that "[tlhe judicial power of the state is vested in one supreme court, district courts, justice courts, and such other courts 

### --- --- as 

### may be provided 

### & law 

### " (emphasisadded). Mont. Const. - - 

### - art. VII, 1. Under this section, the legislature established the vouth courts to provjde iudicial protectionfor youths who have violated the law. As previously noted, the legislature also has the inherentpower to redefine that protection to achieve a legitimate state objective. The legislature pursued this option in 1987 by revising the legislatively-created transfer of jurisdiction mechanism. We held above that by the enactment of S 41-5-206(3), MCA, the legislature does not grant youths age 16 years or olderwho have committed or attempted to commit deliberate or mitigated deliberate homicide, a hearing to consider mitigating factors before transferring the youth to district court. No violation of the separation of power doctrine occurs under the Montana Constitution when the legislature acts to revise the protections afforded youths which were created.under its own legislative power. 

### In light 

### of the above we hold that 41-5-206, MCA, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine of the Montana Constit.ution. Affirmed.

We Concur

CL;

## , r Chief Justice