1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: M ar ch 9, 201 8 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 5528 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 6 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 7 v

. 8 NEHE MIAH G., 9 Child-Appellee.

10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 Joh n J. R om er o, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 John J. W oykovs ky , A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 fo r Appe llant 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 J.K . T heodos ia Johns on, A ssistant Appellate D efender 19 Santa Fe , N M 20 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 FRENC H, Judge. 3 { 1} D ur ing the nig ht o f January 18- 19, 201 3, w he n he w as fif tee n y ears old , 4 D ef en da nt N eh em iah G

. (C hil d) kil le d hi s f athe r, m oth er , a nd thr ee y oung er sib lin gs. 5 He wa s indicted on five counts of first-degree m urder and three c ount s of intentio nal 6 ch ild abuse r es ult ing in the de ath of ac hil d un de r ag e tw el ve . I n O ct obe r 2015 , Ch ild 7 ple ad ed

gui lty to tw o c ount s of se co nd- de gr ee m ur de r an d, as ch ar ge d, thr ee c ount s 8 of int en tio na l chi ld a

buse r es ult ing in de ath. P ur suant t o N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 32 A -2

- 9 20 ( 2009 ), the dis tr ic t c ourt c ondu ct ed an am en ab ility he ar ing ove r the c our se of 10 seven day s in January and February

2016 . A t the conclusio n of the hearing, the c ourt 11 fo und tha t “ the St at e fa ile d to pr ove by c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing e vid en ce that [ Ch ild ] is 12 not a m en ab le to tr eatm en t or r eh ab ili ta tio n a s ac hil d ina va ila ble f ac ili tie s, ” an d 13 ac co rd ing ly

c om m itt ed him to the c ust ody of the N ewMe xic o C hil dr en , Y outh and 1 4 Fa m il i e s D e p a rt m e n t( C Y F D ) u n t i l h i s tw e n t y - f i r s tb i rt h d a y

( o c c u rr i n g M a r c h 2 0, 15 2018 ). T he S ta te ha s a ppe al ed the a m en ab ili ty de te rm ina tio n. Be ca use w e de te rm ine 16 tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

( 1) i n s u f f ic ie ntl y c onsi de ri ng and f

ai lin g 17 to m ak e pr ope r fi ndi ngs re ga rd ing ea ch of the se ve n sta tut or y fa ct or s uponw hic h th e 18 am en ab ility de te rm ina tio n r es ts, ( 2) m isi nte rp re tin g pr ec ed en t t o c onc lud e tha t the 19 fi rs t f our statut or y f ac tor s re la te d to the c om

m iss ionof

the c ri m e w er e of

le sse r or no2

1 ap pli cabi li ty

to tha t ul tim at e de te rm ina tio n, a nd ( 3) a rb itr ar ily dis re ga rd ing 2 unc ontra dic te d e xpe rt

te sti m ony

that i ndicated C hil d w oul d no t be r eh ab ili ta te d by 3 his tw en ty -f

ir st b irthd ay , w e re ve rs e an d va cate the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a m en ab ili ty 4 de te rm ina tio n, a nd r em an d f or r eh eari ng. 5 BACKGRO UND 6 { 2} W e be ginby

sum m arizi ng the te sti m ony giv ena t the he ar ing c onc er nin g th e 7 circum stances of Child’ s personal life, includ ing his m aturity , his situatio n at hom e, 8 his soc ia l and em oti ona l he al th, a nd the f ac ts c onc er

nin g th e co m

m iss ionof

the 9 cr im es . A t the ti m e of

the kil lin gs, Ch ild liv ed in a hous e in B er na lil lo C ounty

w ith 10 his pare nts , G re g G

. ( G re g) an d S ar ahG

. ( Sarah) , his nin e- y ear- old br oth er , Z

. G

. , a nd 11 his two y oung er sisters, five-y ear- old J.G. and two-y ear- old A.G . T he fa m ily wa s 12 inv olv ed

w itha nd f

re que ntl y a tte nde d c hur chtog ethe r at Ca lvary Ch ap el in 13 Albuquerque, N ewMexico. C hild m et his girlfriend, tw el v e- year-old A.W ., at 14 Calvary

Chapel. He play ed in the church band, and his ho bbies inclu ded 15 sk at eb oa rd in g a nd vi de o g am es , n am el y a W or ld W ar II ga m e cal le d “ Cal l o f Dut y .” 16 Ch ild ha d al w ay s be en hom e sc hool ed

. H is m oth er taught him , but Ch ild sa id tha t hi s 17 stu die s ha d a lso be enlarg el y “ se lf -d ir ec te d” be ca

use his m oth er

w as too bus y . Ch ild 18 sa id he planne d to ge t a G E D an d to j oin the m ili tary w he n he tur ne d ei ghteen . He3

1 claim ed that he had used m arij uana every fewwe eks since he wa s about twelve y ears 2 ol d, wh ic h h e g ot fro m hi s fr ie nd s at ch ur ch

. 3 { 3} Child described his m other as generally quiet, but she y elled at him at hom e. 4 H e s a i d t h a t s h e w a s a l w a y s up s e t w i t h h i m a n d h i s s i b l i n g s , c o n s t a n t l ya ngryor 5 de pr es se d, a nd s he r ar el y sm ile d. Ch ild

sa id tha t sh e w as ve rb al ly abusi ve to him 6 ne ar ly e ve ry day a nd h ad tol d hi m that sh e re gr ette d his birth and w ish ed she c oul d 7 stone him

to death. Child also said that when she was e specially m ad, a bout once eac h 8 m onth, she hit

the c hil dr enw ithabe lt. 9 { 4} Ch ild ’ s f

athe r, G re g, gr ewup C athol ic but la te r be cam e inv olv ed w ithgangs. 10 H e re ne w ed

his f ai th a ft er spe ndi ng t im e in j ai l, be cam e a Ch ri sti anpa sto r, a nd h el d 11 a m inistry

at the Metropolitan De tention Center in Albuquerque, N ewMexico. G reg 12 purportedlytold Child that before re- converting to Christianity and while he w as part 13 of a gang, he wa s in and out of jail a few tim es an d had last been arr ested for a drive14 by sho oti ng. G re g w orke d a t C al va ry Ch ap el f or ape ri od o f tim e, but

los t hi s j ob 15 the re in 2012

. T he f

am ily ha d financ ia l dif

fi cu lti es , a nd G re g be ga n w orkin g th e nig ht 16 shi ft a t the Re sc ue Mi ssi on. Ch ild sa id tha t he and his fathe r oc ca sio na lly sho t guns 17 tog ethe r. G re g w as w or ri ed about intru de rs atta ck ing the fam ily w he n he w orke d th e 18 nig ht sh ift , s o he ke pt g uns at the hou se f

or pur pose s of pr ote ct ing the f

am ily a nd 19 ga ve Ch ild

or de rs to stay up an d pa tr ol the pr ope rty at nig ht. G re g w as hard on C hil d4

1 and Child recalled that when he w as twe lve y ears o l d he lost cons ciousness after 2 being in a fight with his father. 3 { 5} T he m o rn i n g o f J a n u a ry 1 8 , 2 0 1 3 , C h i l d c o m m u n i c a t e d t o h i s g i r l f

r ie nd h is 4 tho ught s ab out co m

m itt ing the cr im es an d sa id tha t he w an te d to se e he r de spi te his 5 pa re nts pr ev en tin g hi m f ro m doi ng s o. S ar ahy el le d a t C hil d f re que ntl y tha t da y

a nd 6 he f el t i rr itate d. H e sa id h e play ed “ Ca ll of D uty ” for a co upl e of

hours in the la te 7 after noon , but he spent from

5:00 p .m . to 10:00 p.m . in his m other’ s room with her. 8 Ch ild sa id tha t ar ound 11: 50 tha t ev en ing , he ha d be co m e inc re as ing ly a ngr y a nd h e 9 decided that he would proceed with a plan to ki ll his m other, w ho bythen had fallen 10 as le ep w ithZ

. G

. in he r be dr oom . Ch ild r etri ev ed agunf ro m the c los et in he r be dr oom 11 and shot her in the head tw o tim es. C hild said that he shot h er f rom about fifteen fee t 12 aw ay and that he expected t o kill her when he shot. Z. G. we nt to get tissu es to clean 13 up h is m oth er ’ s blo od. Whe n Z

. G

. re tur ne d, Ch ild

sa id t o hi m

“ y ou’ re ne xt” a nd s hot 14 Z. G. once in the head. C hild claim ed that he never liked Z. G. and that Z. G. had once 15 thr eate ne d to ki ll hi m . Chil d th enpr oc ee de d do w n th e ha ll to f ind his sis te rs , w ho 16 we re c ry in g , an d shot both o f them . C hild said that he wa s certain they we re dea d 17 after he shot them . C hild recalled thinki ng that his father wa s a larger person and that 18 he w oul d ne ed a m or e pow er fu l gun to kil l his fathe r w he n he re tu rn ed ho m e fr om 19 w orkin g anig ht s hif

t. H e re tr ie ve d hi s f

athe r’ s A R- 15 r if

le , sho t hi s sist er ’ s li fe le ss5

1 body onc e m or e to se e howlou d th e gun soun de d, a nd w en t do w nst ai rs to w ai t f or his 2 fathe r to r et

ur n. Chil d w ai te d inthe ba thr oom f or se ve ra l ho ur s un til he he ar d hi s 3 fathe r w al k by

the door

. Whe n his fa the r ar ri ve d, Ch ild ste ppe d out and s hot him f our 4 tim es in the ba ck , the n w al ke d c los er to his f athe r’ s bo dy

a nd s hot him in the he ad

. 5 { 6} Bo th bef

or e and af te r the kil lin gs, be tw ee n 11:20 p. m . on Janua ry 18, 201 3 and 6 9:2 0 p. m . on Ja nu ary 19, 201 3, Ch ild

a nd h is g ir lf

ri en d, A

. W

. , e xc ha nge d te xt 7 m es sa ge s re ga rd in g a pl an t o k i ll th ei r res pe ct iv e p aren ts . Chi ld als o t ex te d A.W. a 8 pic tur e of

his m oth er

a nd b ro the r af

te r he kil le d th em , a nd m uc h late r, a ft er

ha vin g 9 wa ited several hours for his father to re turn before killing h im , C hild to ld A .W . that 10 he ha d ki lle d hi m , too

. T he y the n arr an ge d to m ee t a t C al va ry Ch ap el

. 11 {7} Ch ild

w as arr es te d onJanuary 20, 201 3. A s st at ed , he w as ind ic te d onf ive 12 co unt s of fir st- de gr ee m ur de r an d th re e co unt s of

int en tio na l c hil d a

buse r es ult ing in 13 the death of a chil d under twelve y ears of age. Ne arly three y ears late r, Child pleaded 14 gui lty to tw o c ount s of

se co nd- de gr ee m

ur de r, c ontrary

to N MS A 197 8, Se ct ion30- 2- 15 1(A) (1) (1994), f

or the deaths of his m other and father, and three counts of intentio nal 16 ch ild abuse r es ult ing in the de ath of ac hil d un de r tw el ve y ears of a ge , c ontrary to 17 N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (D ) (2 009) , f or the de aths o f his br oth er

a nd tw o si ste rs . 18 T he dis tr ic t cour

t subse que ntl y fo und tha t the St at e had fa ile d to e sta bli sh tha t C hil d 19 w as not

a m en ab le to tr eatm en t or re habil itatio n, an d e nte re d aj udgm en t c om m itt ing6

1 C h i l d“ t o t h e c u s t o d y o f [ C Y F D ] t o b e c o n f i n e d u n t i l h e r e a c h e s t h e a g e o f t w e n t y2 one ( 21) unl es s so one r disch ar ge d. ” Ch ild w as nin et ee n y ears old

a t the ti m e of 3 dispo siti o n , an d therefore his juvenile sanction am ount ed to confinem ent for a 4 dur at ion of ap pr oxi m at el y tw o y ears . T he S ta te appe al s f ro m the a m en ab ili ty

f ind ing 5 whi ch all owe d t he im

po si ti on of ju ve ni le san ct io ns rat he r th an an adul t s en te nc e. 6 DISC US SION 7 { 8} T his appe al pr es en ts tw o issue s: (1 ) D oe s the St at e hav e the ri ght to a ppe al the 8 am enability

finding, and ( 2) Did the district c ourt a buse its discretion in m aking th at 9 fi nd in g? W e co nc lud e tha t the S ta te ha s th e ri ght to ap pe al f

ro m the a m en ab ili ty 10 or de r, a nd tha t the di stri ct c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

m ak ing the a m en ab ili ty 11 fi ndi ng. 12 A . Th e St at e Ha s a S ta tu to ry R igh t to A pp ea l 13 { 9} A s an in iti al m atte r w e ad dr es s w he the r thi s C ourt ha s j ur isd ic tio n ov er the 14 St at e’ s a

ppe al f ro m the de te rm ina tio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt onCh ild ’ s a m en ab ili ty to 15 tr eatm en t i n j uve nil e fa ci lit ie s. T he S ta te a rg ue s th at it ha s bo th a

statut or y a nd 16 constitu tional right to appeal under NMS A 1978 , Section 32A-1-17 (1999), N MSA 17 1978 , S ection 39-3-2 (196 6), and Article V I, Sec tion 2 of the N ewMexico 18 Co nst itu tio n.7

1 { 10} W e fi rs t exa m ine the St at e’ s sta tut or y ar gum en ts. Se ct ion 32A -1 -1 7( A ) of the 2 Ch ildre n’ s C od e, NMSA197 8, §§ 3 2A -1 -1 to -2 5- 5 ( 1993 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 3 2015 ), provides th at “ [a] ny party m ay appeal from a judgm ent of t he court to the court 4 of appeals in the m anner provided by law. ” Ne ither party dispu tes that t h e d i strict 5 court’ s ruling resulted in a final j udgm ent for purposes of appeal, and we agr ee that 6 the j udgm en t i s f

ina l be ca use al l issue s of lawa nd f ac t have be ende te rm ine d and the 7 cas e h as be en di sp os edof b y th e d is tri ctco ur t to th e fu ll es t ex te nt po ss ib le

. Se e Zu ni 8 In dia n Tr ibe v. M

cK inl ey Ct y. B d. of C

ty

. Co m m ’r

s , 201 3- N MC A -0 41, ¶

16, 300 P

. 3d 9 133. T he re is al so n o qu es tio n th at the S ta te is a pa rty

to the c as e, so whe the r the S ta te 10 ha s a rig ht to ap pe al tu rn s o n wh et he r it s ap pe al is “ in th e m an ne r pr ov id edby law.” 11 Section 32A-1-17(A ). 12 { 11} T he S ta te a rg ue s tha t Se ct ion 32A -1 -1 7( A ) its el f cr eate s a ri ght to a ppe al , a nd 13 tha t i t a

ppe al ed “ in the m an ne r pr ovi de d by law ” be ca

use it fo llo w ed

Ru le 12- 201 14 NMR A, Rule 12-202 NMR

A and Rule 12-208 NMR

A. Our previous cases, however , 1 5 h av e n o ti n t er

p re t ed Se ct i o n 3 2 A- 1 -1 7 as cr ea t i n g a r i g h t t o ap p ea l fr o m Ch i l d re n ’s 16 Code proceedings, and have instead interpreted it as requiring us to lo ok to o ther 17 sta tut es or

to the N ew Me xic o C onst itu tio n to de te rm ine w he the r anappe al is 18 au tho ri ze d. F or

e xa m ple , in In re D oe , 1973 -N MC A -1 41, 85 N. M. 691, 516 P

. 2d 2 01, 19 we considered the predecessor statute to Section 32A-1-17, which also prov ided that8

1 ap pe al s c oul d be take n “ in the m atte r pr ovi de d by law [, ] ” an d c onc lu de d th at it 2 required us to determ ine whether the appeal in that case w as “ authorized by law .” In 3 re D oe , 197 3- N MC A -1 41, ¶ 3. W e the n he ld tha t anothe r sta tut e au thori ze d th e 4 ap pe al

. Id

. ¶ ¶ 4- 5. Bo th w e an d our Su pr em e Court

ha ve r ea ch ed

sim ilar co nc lus ion s 5 in o the r ca se s. See S tate v. Ja de G. , 200 7- N MS C- 010, ¶ ¶ 1, 9- 14, 141 N

. M. 284 , 154 6 P. 3d 6 59 ( al low ing ap pe al by the state f ro m asup pr es sio n or de r in a

Ch ildre n’ s C ode 7 case under N M SA 1 9 7 8 , S ection 39-3-3(B)(2) ( 1972 )) ; In re C hr is to ba l V. , 200 2- 8 N MC A -0 77, ¶

¶ 1, 8, 132 N

. M. 474, 50 P. 3d 569 (hol din g that the St at e had the r igh t 9 to appeal from

a delinquency

proceeding because it wa s an “ aggrieved party ” under 10 Article V I, Sec tion 2 of the N ewMex i co Constitu tion). A ccordingly , w e hold that 11 Se ct ion32A -1 -1 7 do es not c re at e a ri ght to ap pe al

. A ri ght to ap pe al , if it ex ist s, m ust 12 be ba se d onsom e oth er statut e, or

on the state c onst itu tio n. 13 { 12} The S tate also argues that delinquencyproceedings are c onsid ered c ivil rather 1 4 t h an cr i m i n al p ro ce ed i n g s an d , th er ef o re , it m ay ap p ea l fr o m t h e ch i l d r e n ’s c o u rt ’s 15 or de r unde r Se ct ion 39- 3- 2. Se ct ion39- 3- 2 go ve rn s c ivi l a ppe al s f ro m dis tr ic t c ourt, 16 and provid es that any party aggrieved m ay

appeal “ from t h e entry

of any final 17 j udgm ent or d ecision, any interlocutory

order or dec ision which prac tically dispo ses 18 of the m er its of

the a ct ion, or

a ny f ina l or de r af

te r en tr y of j udgm en t w hic h a ff

ec ts 19 subs tantial rights[.] ”9

1 { 13} The State cites no case w hich applies Section 39 -3-2 to a j uvenile delin quency 2 proceeding, and we are not awar e of any that do. A lthou gh we have a pplied NMSA 3 1978 , S ec tio n 39 -3 -4 ( 1999 ), the statut e au tho ri zi ng i nte rl oc uto ry appe al s f ro m c ivi l 4 an d spe ci al sta tut or

y pr oc ee din gs, to de lin que nc y pr oc ee din gs, w e did so be caus e 5 delinqu ency proceedings ar e special statutory proceedings, not on the grou n d that 6 th ey are ci vi l p ro ceed in gs . Se e In re D oe , 197 3- N MC A -1 41, ¶ ¶ 3- 5 ( hol din g tha t the 7 pr ed ec es sor sta tut e to S ec tio n 39 -3 -4 auth or iz ed int er loc uto ry

appe al f ro m j uve nil e 8 pr oc ee din g th at

w as it se lf statut or ily

auth or iz ed

by th e D e l i n q

u e n c y A c t )

. O ur hol din g 9 in In re D oe is consist ent with a long line of opin ions from our Suprem e Court 10 describing juvenile delinqu ency proceedings as special statutory proceedings (which 11 are al so kn own as “ sp eci al pro ceed in gs ”). Cf. State v. F lorez , 193 1- N MS C- 068, ¶ 4, 12 36 N.M. 80 , 8 P

. 2d 7 86 ( re co gni zi ng tha t a pr oc ee din g se nte nc ing m ino rs w ho 13 ple ad ed

gui lty to larc en y

w as astatut or

y a nd s pe ci al pr oc ee din g) ; In re Santil lanes , 14 1943 -N MSC- 011, ¶ 20, 47 N .M. 140, 138 P.2d 503 (“ That the j uvenile delin quency 15 ac t dea ls w ith spe ci al ca se s and s et s up spe ci al pr oc ee din gs, w e do n ot d oubt

. ”) ; Sta te 16 v. A cu na , 196 7- N MS C- 090, ¶ 9, 78 N. M. 119 , 428 P

. 2d 6 58 ( ac know le dgi ng h old ing 17 of Florez tha t j uve nil e pr oc ee din gs ar e ‘ spe ci al sta tut or y pr oc ee din gs’ as opp ose d to 18 cr im ina l pr oc ee din gs) (c itatio n om itt ed ); State v. Jones , 2010 -N MS C- 012, ¶ 13, 148 19 N

. M. 1, 229 P

. 3d 4 74 (stating that an am enability hearing is a “ special proceeding”).10

1 { 14} Beca

use proceed i n gs und er the C hildren’ s Code are special statutory 2 pr oc ee din gs, w e hol d that the St at e has a ri ght to app ea l unde r N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 3 39- 3- 7 ( 1966 ), w hic h pr ovi de s th at a ny a ggr ie ve d party

m ay ap pe al “ the en tr

y of a ny 4 final j udgm ent o r d ec i sion, . .

. or any final order a fter e ntry

of j udgm ent which 5 af fe ct s s ub s t an t i al ri g h t s , i n an y s p ec i al s t at u t o ry p ro ce ed i n g i n t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt [. ]” 6 Se e als o N MS A 197 8, § 32 A -1 -5 ( 1993 ) (e sta bli shi ng the c hil dr en ’ s c ourt a s a 7 div isi on o f the dis tr ic t co ur t). T houg h ne ith er party dis cu sse d th e ap pli ca

bil ity of 8 Se ct ion39- 3- 7 to th is cas e, the ir f ai lur e to b ri ng i t t o our atte nti on d oe s no t bar us 9 fro m co ns id eri ng it , bec au se th e is su e in vo lv es th is Co ur t’s ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on . See 10 Sta te v . M

orr is , 196 1- N MS C- 120, ¶ 2, 69 N

. M. 89, 364 P

. 2d 3 48 ( “ T he f ac t tha t the 11 j ur isd ic tio na l qu es tio n is not r ai se d by the part ie s is of

no c onsequ en ce . ”) ; W

ill iam 12 K. W arren Found. v. Barnes , 196 0- N MS C- 069, ¶ ¶ 7- 8, 67 N

. M. 187 , 354 P

. 2d 1 26 13 (n oti ng tha t j ur isdic ti on c an not be c onf er re d by the part ie s th ro ugh w ai ve r or 14 co ns en t). 15 { 15} H av ing c onc lud ed tha t Se ct ion 39- 3- 7 is the app ro pr ia te sta tut e to a ppl y to the 16 pr es en t c as e, w e m

ust de te rm ine w he the r the St at e is an “ ag gr ie ve d” pa rty . Se e § 39

- 17 3-7 (stating that “ any party aggrieved m ay appeal” f rom a final j udgm ent in a special 1 8 sta tut or

y p r o c e e d i n g i n d i s t r i c tc o u rt )

. “ A n ‘ a g g r i e v e dp a rt y ’ m e a n s ap a rt y w hose 19 interests are a dversely af fe ct ed.” Ch rist ob al

V. , 2002 -N MC A -0 77, ¶ 8 ( ci ta tio n11

1 om itted). “ Th e [s] tate is aggrieved by a disposi tion con trary

to law[ .] ” Id

. ; cf

. Sta te 2 v. A gui lar , 198 1- N MS C- 027, ¶ ¶ 5- 7, 95 N

. M. 578, 624 P

. 2d 5 20 ( ag re ei ng tha t the 3 sta te w as a n “ ag gr ie ve d party ” “ w he re it a lle ge s adis posi tio n c ontrary to lawin a 4 cr im ina l pr oc ee din g” a nd a lso not ing that the state ha s a“ str ong int er es t i n th e 5 enforcem ent of its statutes”). As set f orth m ore fully below, we find that the dist rict 6 co ur t’s disposi tio n of

thi s c as e w as “ co ntr ar

y to law ” be ca

use it f ai le d to m ak e the 7 fi n d i n g s re qu i re du n d erSe ct i o n 3 2 A- 2 -2 0 (C ), m i s i n t er p re t ed o u r S up re m e C o u rt ’s 8 pr ec ed en t, and

it s de ci sio n to a rb itr ar ily dis re ga rd

unanim ous ex pe rt

te sti m ony 9 “ ad ve rs el y affe ct ed ” th e St at e’s “ st ro ng in te res t in th e en fo rcem en t o f i t s s ta tu te s.” 10 Aguilar , 198 1- N MS C- 027, ¶ ¶ 5- 7; Ch rist ob al

V. , 2 0 0 2

- N M C A

- 0 7 7 , ¶8. 1 1 Ac co rd i n g l y, we c o n cl u d e t h at t h e S t at e h as a r i g h t t o ap p ea l t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 12 am enability

determ ination under Section 39-3-7

. 13 { 16} H avin g he ld tha t the S ta te ha s ar igh t t o a ppe al be ca

use thi s pr oc ee din g is a 14 spe ci al statut or

y pr oc ee din g, w e ne ed

not dis cu ss the S ta te ’ s arg um en t tha t i t ha s a 15 co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to ap pe al

. See A llen v. LeM aster , 201 2- N MS C- 001, ¶ 28, 267 16 P. 3d 8 06 (“ It is an en dur ing pr inc ipl e of c onst itu tio na l j ur isp ru de nc e tha t c ourts w ill 17 av oid de ci din g c onst itu tio na l que sti ons unl es s re qui re d to do s o. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n 18 m arks om itted)).12

1 B. A bu se of

D isc re ti on 2 { 17} W e turn to the subs tance of the State’ s appeal, whether the district court abused 3 its dis cr et ionin fi ndi ng tha t the S ta te ha d f ai le d to pr ove that C hil d w as not a m en ab le 4 to treatm ent. W e begin by discuss ing the De linqu ency Ac t, NMS A 1978, §§ 32A-2-1 5 to -33 (1 993, a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2016 ) , w ith som e spe ci fi ci ty , be ca use our a na ly sis 6 hin ge s onthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

the A ct ’ s pr ovi sio ns t o th e te sti m ony 7 ta ke n duri ng C hil d’ s a m en ab ili ty heari ng . W e the n r ev ie win de ta il the te sti m ony 8 pr es en te d a t t he am en ab il i t y h e a r i n g a nd th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d eci si on . Fin al ly, we 9 ex pla in o ur

c onc lus ionthat the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n. 10 1. Go ve rn in g L aw 11 { 18} Section 32A-2-3(C) , ( H) , and (J) of t h e D elinquency Ac t, e stablish es three 12 cl as se s of

j uve nil e of

fe nde rs , the la st tw o of

w hic h are r el ev an t t o C hil d: d el inque nt 13 of fen de rs , se rio us y ou th fu l offe nd ers , and y ou th fu l o ffen de rs . see State v. G onza les , 14 2001 -N MCA -025, ¶ 16, 130 N.M. 341, 24 P. 3d 776 (explaining that “ the Le gislature 15 cr eate d th re e ‘ cl as se s’ of j uve nil e of

fen ders : se ri ous y outhf

ul o ff en de rs , y outhf

ul 16 of fen de rs , a nd de li nq ue nt off en de rs ”), ov errul ed on oth er gro unds bySta te v . R udy 17 B

. , 200 9- N MC A -1 04, 147 N

. M. 45, 216 P

. 3d 8 10. The ca te gor ie s have im portant 18 consequence s because a c hild’s placem ent in one of them determ ines the poten tial 19 po st -ad

jud ic at io n c on se qu en ces th atth e ch il d wi ll face

. Jones , 2010-NMS C-13

1 012, ¶ 10. T his c at eg or iz at ion“ re fl ec t[ s] the reha bil itativ e pur

pose of the 2 D el inque nc y

A ct , c oupl ed

w iththe r ea liz at ionthat so m e j uve nil e of fe nde rs c an not

be 3 rehabilitated given th e lim ited resources and j urisdictio n of the j uv en i le j ustice 4 sy stem .” Gonzales , 2001-NMC A- 02 5 , ¶ 1 6. Se rious y outh ful offenders, children 5 fifteen to eighteen y ears old charged w ith comm itting firs t -d egree m urder, “ are 6 excluded from

the j urisdictio n of the children’ s court unless fou nd gu ilty of a lesser 7 offense. ” Id ; S ec tio n 32A -2 -3 (H ). Se ri ous y outhf ul of fe nde rs ar e, the re fo re , tr ie d and 8 se nt en ced as a du lt s i n d is tri ctco ur t. See § 32A-2-6(A ); Jones , 2010 -N MS C- 012, ¶ 11 9 (“ Once charged with first-degree m urder, a seriou s y outh ful offender is no longer a 10 j uvenile within th e m eaning of the Delinquency Ac t, and therefore is no lon ger 11 en tit le d to its pr ote ct ion s. A s a re sul t, se ri ous y outhf ul o ff en de rs a re . . . auto m at ic al ly 12 se nte nc ed

a s a dul ts i f co nvict ed

. ”) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ); se e als o Gonzales , 200 1- 13 N MC A -0 25, ¶

16 ( ex pla ini ng tha t “ the L eg isl at ur e ha s de te rm ine d th at

se ri ous 1 4 yo u t h fu l o ff

en d er s ca n n o t b e re h ab i l i t at ed u s i n g ex i s t i n g re s o u rc es i n t h e t i me 15 available” given “ the age of these off enders and the seriousness o f the offe nse, 16 includi ng the requisit e intent”). 17 { 19} Ba se d onthe ind ic tm en t, Ch il d w as ini tia lly c la ssi fi ed

a s ase ri ous y outhf

ul 18 of fe nde r, a nd the re fo re if co nvi ct ed w oul d have be en au tom at ic al ly sub j ec t t o a dul t 19 se nte nc ing

. H ow ev er , be ca use Ch il d ple ad ed

gui lty to se co nd- de gr ee m

ur de r an d14

1 int en tio na l c hil d a

buse r es ult ing in the de ath of ac hil d un de r tw el ve y ears of a ge , he 2 is c la ssi fi ed

a s ay outhf

ul o ff en de r. Y outhf

ul o ff en de rs a re ch ildre n f

ourte ento 3 eighteen y ears old who ar e adj udicated guil ty of at lea st one of twelve enum erate d 4 fe lon ie s, inc lud ing se co nd- de gr ee m ur de r as pr ovi de d inS ec tio n 30 -2 -1 an d chil d 5 ab us e res ul ti ng in de at h as pro vi de d i n S ect io n 3 0- 6- 1. See § 32A-2-3(J)( 1)(a) , ( m ). 6 Y outhf ul o ff en de rs “ pot en tia lly

f ac e ei the r j uve nil e or ad

ult sanc tio ns, de pe ndi ng o n 7 the out co m e of

aspe ci al pr oc ee din g a ft er a dj udi catio n kn ow n a s an a m en ab ili ty 8 hearing.” Jones , 201 0- N MS C- 012, ¶ 13. 9 { 20} A t the a m en ab ili ty he ar ing , the part ie s m ay pr es en t e vid en ce r eg ar din g, a nd the 10 dis tr ic t c ourt “ sha ll co nsi de r” the f oll ow ing f

ac tor s: 11 (1 ) the se ri ousn es s of the of fe nse ; 12 (2 ) w he the r the

. . . of fe nse w as co m

m itt ed in an ag gr es siv e, vio le nt, 13 pr em ed itate d or w ill fu l m an ne r; 14 (3) whether a fire arm wa s used to comm it the . .

. offense; 1 5 ( 4 ) w h e t h e r

t h e . . . o f

f e n s e w a s a g a i n s tp e r s o n s o r a g a i n s tp r o p e rt y, 16 gr eate r w ei ght be ing giv en to o ff

en se s a ga ins t pe rs ons, e spe ci al ly 17 if

pe rs ona l i nj ur

y r es ult ed ; 18 (5 ) the m at ur it y of the c hil d a s de te rm ine d by c onsi de ratio n of the 19 child’s hom e, environm ental situation , soci al and em otion al 20 he al th, pa tte rn of liv ing , br ai n de ve lop m en t, tr au m a his tor y , a nd 21 dis ab ili ty ; 22 (6 ) the r ec or d and p re vio us h ist or y of the c hil d;15

1 (7 ) the pr ospe ct s fo r ad eq ua te pr ot ect io n of th e pu bli c an d the 2 lik el iho od o f re as ona ble r eh ab ili ta tio n of the c hil d by the use of 3 pr oc ed

ur es , se rv ic es , a nd f

ac ili tie s c ur

re ntl y a va ila ble ; and 4 ( 8 ) an yo t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r , p r o v i d e d t h a t f

a c t o r i s s ta te d on the 5 reco rd

. 6 Sect io n 3 2A- 2- 20 (C). 7 { 21} To “ consider[,] ” the court m ust “ think about this evidence with a degree of car e 8 an d caution.” Sta te v . D oe , 1 9 7 9

- N M C A

- 1 2 2 , ¶ 1 3 , 9 3 N

. M

. 4 8 1 , 6 0 1 P

. 2 d451

. 9 Furthe r, our

S upr em e Co urt has he ld tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso m ust m ak e “ fi ndi ngs” 10 reg ard in g each of t he fact or s. See Sta te v . Sos a , 199 7- N MS C- 032, ¶ 8, 123 N

. M. 564 , 11 94 3 P .2d 10 17 . Bas edon it s co ns id erat io n o f an d fi nd in gs reg ard in g t he se fact or s, see 12 id. , t he co ur t in it s d is cret io n, see § 32A -2 -2 0( A ), m ay im pose an ad

ult se nte nc e onl y 13 if it m ak es the f

oll ow ing f

ind ing s: 14 (1 ) the ch ild is not am en ab le to tr eatm en t or re habil itatio n as a ch ild 15 in ava ila ble f ac ili tie s; and 16 (2 ) the ch ild is not el igi ble fo r co mm it m en t t o a n i nstitu tio n fo r 17 ch ildre n w ithde ve lop m en ta l di sa bil iti es or m en ta l di sor de rs . 18 Section 32A-2-20(B)

. If the co urt doe s not m ak e the se fi ndi ngs, the n it m ust im pose 19 j uve nil e sanc tio ns. 20 { 22} T he D elin qu en cyA ct r ef le ct s th e uni que status of c hil dr enw ho c om

m it 21 delinqu ent acts and our Le gislature’ s hesitatio n to im pose pun itive m easures that 22 pot en tia lly

le av e ch ildre n inc ar ce rate d a s a dul ts. See § 32A-2-2 (listing the pu rposes16

1 of the D el inque nc y

A ct , inc lud ing “ to re m ove fr om ch ildre n c om m itt ing de lin que nt 2 a c t s t h e a du l tc o n s e qu e n c e s o f c r i m i n a l b e h a v i or ”) ; s ee also Jones , 2010-NMS C3 012, ¶ 32 (i nte rp re tin g the le gis la tiv e hist or y of the D el inque nc y

A ct “ as e vid en ce of 4 ane vol vin g c onc er

n th at c hil dr enbe tr eated as c hil dr enso l ong as the y c anbe ne fi t 5 from

. . . treatm ent and rehabilitation”). Through the provisi ons of the Delinquency 6 A ct , “ the L eg isl at

ur e no l onge r al low s a chil d to be se nte nc ed a s an a dul t w ith out

the 7 court first finding that th e child is not am enable to treatm ent.” Id

. ¶ 33. N on-crim inal 8 tr eatm en t i s the ru le an d ad ult cr im ina l tr eatm en t the ex ce pti on be ca use “ unl ike the 9 ad ult c ri m ina l j ust ic e sy ste m , w ithit s f oc us on punish m en t and d et er re nc e, the 10 j uve nil e j ust ic e sy ste m r ef le ct s apol ic y favor ing the r eh ab ili ta tio n and tre atm en t of 11 ch il dr en .” Id . ¶

35 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itt ed ). Juvenile justice 12 re sts on the und er standi ng tha t so m e y ou th fu l off en de rs a re not

“ ir re de em ab ly 13 depraved.” G raha m v . F lor ida , 5 60 U.S. 48 , 72 -7 3 (2 01 0) , as m odi fie d (July 6, 2010); 14 se e id

. (d eci di ng that a j uve nil e of

fe nde r fo re ve r w ill be adange r to s oc ie ty w oul d 15 re qui re m ak ing a j udgm en t tha t he is inco rr igi ble , but inc or ri gib ili ty is inc onsi ste nt 16 w ithy outh. ). T his goa l i s to be pur sue d a s lo ng a s it is “ co nsi ste nt w iththe pr ote ct ion 17 of th e p ub li c in te res t.” S ect io n 3 2A- 2- 2( A). 18 { 23} T he standard

of pr oof f or the tw o am en ab ili ty fi ndi ngs ar tic ula te d inS ec tio n 19 32A -2 -2 0( B) r ef

le ct s th es e pol ic ie s an d obj ec tiv es unde rp inn ing j uve nil e j ust ic e. T he17

1 standard is clear and convin cing evidence, “ a heightened stand ard of proof” j ust sh ort 2 of th e h ig he st s t an da rd , beyon d a reas on ab le do ub t. Gonzales , 200 1- N MC A -0 25, 3 ¶ 62. “ Fo r ev ide nc e to be cl ear an d co nvi nc ing , it m ust ins tantl y til t the sc al es in the 4 af fi rmat i v e w h en we i g h ed ag ai n s tt h e e v i d en ce i n o p p o s i t i o n an dt h e f ac tfi n d er ’s 5 m i n d is left w ith an abidin g convictio n that the evidence is true.” St a t e e x re l. 6 Ch il dr en , Y

ou th & Fami li es Dep ’t v. Mich el le B. , 2001-NMC A- 071, ¶ 12, 130 N. M. 7 781, 32 P.3d 790 (internal quo tation m arks and citation om itted). Despite t he fact that 8 th e am en ab il it y

de te rm in at io n i s frau gh t wit h un cert ai nt ie s an d p red ic ti on s, se e Sta te 9 v. Rudy B

. , 2010 -N MS C- 045, ¶ 38, 149 N

. M. 22, 243 P. 3d 726 (“ [T ] he f al lib ili ty a nd 10 la ck of pr ec isi on i nhe re nt i n th e am en ab ili ty de te rm ina tio n r en de r ce rt ai nti es vir t u a l ly 11 be y ond re ac h inm ost

sit ua tio ns. ”( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

k s an d c i t atio n om itt ed )) , thi s 12 Co urt ha s be en w ar

y of “ [a ] ba ndon ing the goa l of re habil itatio n” too ea sil y “ thr ough 13 the m echanism

of a too-low standard of proof. ” Gonzales , 200 1- N MC A -0 25, ¶ 62. 14 { 24} T he D el inque nc y A ct a nd the f ac tor s r equir ed

b y th e am e n a

bil ity de te rm ina tio n 15 pr es en t e viden tiar

y hur dle s f

or the S ta te a s de sc ri be d a bove , but

a lso im pose 16 ch al le nge s f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt. CY FD an d the distri ct c ourt l ose auth or ity

to re ta in 17 in c ust ody

ay outhf ul o ff en de r se nte nc ed

a s aj uve nil e be y ond his or he r tw en ty -f

ir st 18 bi rth da y . See § 32 A -2 -1 9( B) (1 )( c) ; Rud y B. , 201 0- N MS C- 045, ¶ 18; Sta te v . I

ra , 19 2002 -N MCA -037, ¶ 27, 132 N .M. 8, 43 P .3d 359. Section 32A-2-20(B) thus requires18

1 the dis tr ic t c ourt t o car ef ull y ba lanc e the ind ivi dua l and s oc ie ta l i nte re sts a t st ak e an d 2 to d et er

m ine w he the r the de lin que nt c hil d c an be r ei nte gr at ed int o publi c lif

e by the 3 tim e he or she turns twe nty -one. I ndeed, the court’ s lim ited jurisdiction over children 4 se nte nc ed

a s j uve nil es c anbe “ sim ply ina de qua te whe n th e j uve nil e of fe nde r is 5 ex tr em el y

dange ro us an d in ne ed of int en siv e tr eatm en t tha t, if the re is an y

hop e of 6 r e h ab i l i t a t i o n , mu s te x t e n dw e l l b e yo n dt h e t i me t h a to u r c u rr e n ts t a tu t o ry s c h e me 7 gives ou r courts to rehabilitate j uvenile offenders.” Ira , 2002 -N MC A -0 37, ¶ 25; see 8 als o Sosa , 199 7- N MS C- 032, ¶ 10 ( not ing that “ the br ie f pe ri od of tre atm en t ava ila ble 9 to [the de fe ndant] w as ins uf fi ci en t to acc om

pli sh r eh ab ili ta tio n and p ro te ct ionof the 10 publ ic”). 11 { 25} T he dis tr ic t c ourt c anbe placed inac la ssi c dil em m a: im pose j uve nil e 12 sanc tio ns, in w hic h c as e the ch ild w ill be re le as ed upon tur nin g tw en ty -o ne y ears of 13 ag e al tho ugh re habil itatio n an d tr eatm en t m ay be inc om ple te an d al tho ugh the c hil d 14 m ay pose som e ri sk to soc ie ty ; or im pose an ad

ult se nte nc e, w hic h m ay re sul t in 15 le ngthy

inc ar ce ratio n de pr ivi ng the y outhf ul o ffender

of de ca de s of

f re ed om , but 1 6 w h i c h e l i mi n a t e s t h e r i s kt o s o c i e t y wi t h c e rt a i n t y. I ra , 2002- N MS C- 037, ¶

47 17 (Bosson, J., specially concurring); see id

. (d es cr i b i n g t h e d i ff i cu l t y as a H o b s o n ’s 18 choice that leaves the court w ith “ essentially

. . . no choice but to prote ct society at 19 the expense of the child”). I f the j udge sentences the y outh ful offender a s a j uvenile,19

1 the offender “ go[es] fre e at age twenty -one, r egardless of w hether or not he proved 2 to be truly

am enable to rehabilitation.” Id

. 3 2. The A m enability Hearin g 4 { 26} Child’s am enability h earing spanned seven day s. T he State and Child called 5 num ero us witne sse s to te sti fy , inc lud ing som e w ho kne wthe f am ily f ro m the ir 6 attendance a t Calvary Chapel, som e w ho worked with Child during h is stay at 7 Sequoy ah Adolescent T reatm ent Center, and others qualified as experts who testified 8 sp eci fic al ly abo ut Ch il d’s am en ab il it y to tre at m en t b y

th e ag e o f twe nt y -o ne . 9 { 27} D r. N ee l M ad an , a c l i n i c a l r a d i o l o g i s t

an d n e ur o r a d i olo gis t w ho r ev ie w ed sc an s 10 of Ch ild ’ s br ai n, dis cu sse d th e lik el iho od tha t the im ages r ev ea le d tr au m at ic br ai n 11 injury . D r. Madan could not com e to a conclusion abo ut whether Child was 12 m alnourish ed or suffer ed a traum atic brain inj ury . H e testified the im ages revea led 13 no sig ns of bruisin g, scar ring, or m icro h emo rrhagin g in the brain. D r. W illiam 14 O rr iso n, Ch ild’ s ne ur or ad iol ogi st, te sti fi ed that C hil d’ s br ai n sc ane va lua tio ns 15 re tur ne d f ind ing s th at

w er e ab nor

m al a nd c onsi ste nt w ithtr au m a. D r. O rr iso n 16 an sw er ed

a ff irm at ive ly

w he n a ske d if

Ch ild ’ s br ai n w oul d be f

ull y de ve lop ed

by his 17 m id- tw en tie s if

he r ec ei ve d th e pr ope r tr eatm en t and e duc at ion

. 18 { 28} D et ec tiv es f

ro m the Be rn al ill o C ounty

S he ri ff ’ s O ff ic e te sti fi ed

about the ir 19 inv olv em en t w iththe inv es tig at ion of the cr im es . O ne dis cu sse d th e phot os tha t C hil d20

1 had taken of his deceased fam ily m em bers, which Child kept on h is i Po d. A noth er 2 int er vie w ed Ch ild duri ng th e inv es tig at ionthe day a ft er the c ri m es , de sc ri bin g hi m 3 as a re spon sive, aver age teenager . C hild was calm , he changed his story once, c ried 4 w he n he dis cu sse d hi s m oth er , a nd w as c oope rativ e. Ch ild tol d th e de te ct ive that he 5 w as ti r e db e c au s e h e h a dn o tg o t t e n a n y s l e e p t h e n i g h tb e f

o r e . A n o t h e r

d et ec tiv e 6 de sc ri be d th e dis co ve ry of the bod ie s inthe hou se . T he re w as a lso te stim ony about 7 the dis co ve ry

of the gun s, w hic h C hil d had put in Gr eg ’ s ca r af te r the kil lin gs, a nd the 8 am m uni tio n f ound a ro und the hous e. D r. Cl ar iss a K ri nsky , w ho h el pe d pe rf

orm the 9 au top sie s onthe f

ive bod ie s, n oted, a m ong oth er thi ngs, that S ar ahw as li ke ly sho t 10 from a d i s t an ce of not m ore than one to two fee t, that Z .G .’ s guns hot wound wa s 11 “ ra pid ly f at al , ” an d th at G re g’ s inj ur ie s w er e co nsi ste nt w ith tho se ca use d by a hig h 12 power r ifle. 13 { 29} T he dis tr ic t c ourt ne xt he ar d te sti m ony about Ch ild ’ s pr es en ce a t c hur chf ro m 14 m em be rs w ho i nte ra ct ed

w ithCh ild

a nd h is f am ily

. O ne w itn es s de sc ri be d the f am ily 15 as “ ve ry

dis ci pli ne d” and “ ve ry

r es pe ct fu l. ” H e sa id C hil d di d not of te n in iti at e 16 co nve rs at ionbut w as en ga ge d whe n spoke n to, an d that he ha d neve r se enCh ild bul ly 17 or pic k f igh ts w itha ny one . V inc e H ar ri son, the sa fe ty dir ec tor

a t C al va ry

Ch ap el , sa id 1 8 t h a tGr e g wa s a“ t yp i c a l f a t h e r ” wh o wa s a l w a ys wi t h h i s f a mi l y.21

1 { 30} The district court then heard testim ony from em pl oy ees and therapists at 2 Se qu o y a h A d o l e s c e n t T r e a t m e n t C e n t e r , w h e r e C h i l d h a d r e s i d e d s i n c e Ma y201 4. 3 R i c kM o rr i s o n p e r f

o rmedC h i l d ’s i n i t i a l s c r e e n i n g up o n h i s e n t ry i n t o t h e f a c i l i t y. 4 Morrison e xplained that Child’s academ ic perform ance had im proved, that Child had 5 to w ork re al ly ha rd , an d th at he w oul d oc ca sio na lly

be co m e fr

ustrate d w ithspe lli ng 6 an d wri ti ng . His pro gr es s was no rm al an d h e le arn ed a t t h e “ ap pr op ria te pa ce.” 7 Another em

ploy ee said Child had day s when he wa s sad and cry ing. This em ploy ee 8 stated that on on e occasion Child nearly got in t o a fi g h t , but he has since been 9 w orkin g onhis c opi ng skil ls. H e furthe r te sti fi ed tha t Chi ld show s “ a lotof r es pe ct ” 1 0 f o r t h e e mp l o ye e s , h e d o e s w h a ti s a s k e do f h i m w i t h o u tc o mp l a i n i n g , a n d h e i s “a 1 1 r o l e mo d e l

. ” A t e a c h e r a tS e qu o ya h s a i dC h i l d h a s as t r o n g i n t e r e s ti n h i s t o ry, 12 spe ci fi ca lly

Ro m anhis tor

y an d W or ld W ar II

. H e de sc ri be d C hil d’ s pr ogr es s inthe 13 cl as sr oom , not ing tha t “ he ’ s m or e w ill ing to he ar opi nio ns tha t he doe sn’ t ne ce ssari ly 14 agree with and at least consider them .” How ever, the teacher expressed concern that 15 Ch ild is “ loo kin g f

or a ke y to pow er , ” an d r em ai ns f as ci na te d by

pe opl e w ithabsol ute 16 pow er a nd c ontro l. 17 { 31} Ch er

y l A ike n, Ch ild ’ s the ra

pis t at Se quoy ah , al so t es tif ie d a bout his be ha vio r 18 at the f ac ili ty

. S he sa id C hil d ha d pr obl em s w ithtol er an ce a nd r ac ism a nd i ssu es w ith 19 pe opl e tha t he pe rc ei ve d t o be diff er en t f ro m him , a nd tha t he le ar

ne d it f ro m his22

1 pa re nts , w hom he sa id w er e pr ej udi ce d. Ch ild ha s, how ev er , le ar ne d an d us es c opi ng 2 ski lls to m an ag e his e m oti ons, w hic h sh e sa id is pa rt of handl ing the tr au m a Ch ild 3 underwent given the alleged phy sical aggression and abuse by his father and m other. 4 When asked to assess Ch i ld’ s progress, A iken said he has “ done very we ll” after 5 tw en ty m onths o f tr eatm en t a t S equoy ah , a nd t he m ed ic ation s he w as takin g f or 6 de pr es sio n an d ha llu ci na tio ns w er e he lpf ul. A ike n sa id tha t C hil d ha s be enin 7 t r eat m en t an d “ he ’s m ad e p ro gr es s, s o t ha t . . . in it se lf s ho ws t ha t h e’s tr eat ab le .” 8 Sh e de sc ri be d C hil d a s “ tr eata ble ” be ca use he ha s m ad e pr ogr es s a ca de m ic al ly a nd 9 ha s no t be eninv olv ed in an y a lte rc at io ns , a nd exp la ine d th at he ha s be enable to 10 m an ag e his e m oti ons. Sh e sa id he is pol ite , ha s w or ke d th ro ugh his e m oti ona l i ssu es , 11 talked about and takes responsib ility for w hat happened, and is, there fore, treata ble. 12 The average stay at the facility is betw een four and six m onth s, but A iken not ed that 13 Child has been there for tw enty m onth s b ec au s e “ he still needs treatm ent.” When 14 as ke d a

bout t he sa fe ty

a nd r isk s a sso ci at ed

w ithCh ild , A ike n st at ed : “ I don’ t thin k 15 we ’ ve talked about him stopp ing treatm ent right now . .

. [he] certainly needs m ore 16 wor k a nd ho pe fu ll y

th at ’s add res se d.” 17 { 32} Se ve ra l e xpe rt s te sti fi ed spe ci fi ca lly

about Ch ild ’ s am en ab ili ty to tre atm en t by 18 the tim e h e reaches t he age o f twenty -one. Dr. Mohandie, called b y the State, said that 19 Ch ild co uld not

be tr eate d by

the ti m e he r ea ch ed

the a ge of

tw en ty -o ne . A ft er

statin g23

1 that treating Child would “ take a long tim e, ” D r. Mohandie was asked w hether it wa s 2 poss i b l e o r

r e a l i s t i c t o e x p e c tt o t r e a tC h i l di n t h e t w o y e a r s r e m a i n i n g b e f o r e h is 3 twen ty-firs t b irt hd ay , to whi ch he pl ai nl y rep li ed : “No.” 4 { 33} Ch ild

c al le d D r. Man lo ve , w ho t es tif ie d, “ I can’ t say

howhe ’ s go ing to be 5 doi ng i n tw o y ears [. ] ” T o the ex te nt D r. Manlo ve ex pr es se d that Ch ild w as ge ne ra lly 6 am en ab le to tr eatm en t, he did not say that C hil d w ou ld be tr eate d or oth er w ise 7 rehabilitated by age twenty -one, the tim e of his relea se from custody . D r. Manlove, 8 w he n a ske d sp ec if

ic al ly , “ Is [ Ch ild ] a m en ab le to tre atm en t?” r ep lie d, “ H e’ s de fi nit el y 9 am enable to tr eatm ent from m y perspective.” How ever, Dr

. Manlove e m phasized that 10 he “ really

stronglybelieve[d] that t h e t ra jectory shoul d be extended as long as 11 poss ibl e. ” O n cr oss -e xa m ina tio n, D r. Manlo ve sa id tha t “ w e’ d have agoo d f ee l f or 12 howhe w as doi ng b y

the ti m e he w as som ewhe re in his m id- 20s range , ” an d th at he 13 shou ld b e re as se sse d th en . 14 { 34} D r. F ie lds , w hom the dis tr ic t cour

t appo int ed an d Chil d cal le d to te sti fy state d, 15 “ E ve n th ough , statis tic al ly , his c ha nc es of r eo ff en din g in a vio le nt w ay

a re ve ry sm al l, 16 it’ s st ill part ly

ba se d up on w ha t he did , w hic h .

. . w as absol ute ly hor ri fi c. ” H e sa id, 17 “ I re co m

m en de d am ini m

um of f ive y ears , a nd the r ea son I pic ke d th at w as that [ at ] 1 8 the e n d o f f

i v e y e a r s , h e w o u l d b e t w e n t y - t h r e e y e a r s o l d a n d b r a i n d e v e l o p m e n t i s 19 co m ple te d by the n. ” D r. F ie lds ba se d hi s r ec om m en da tio n pa rt ly on the de ve lop m en t24

1 of Ch ild ’ br ai n and i ts f

ac ult ie s an d pa rt ly

on “ the w ork” that he be lie ve d C hil d 2 ne ed ed to do. “ It is j ust astart a nd the re is m or e to b e done a nd I don’ t think it can be 3 fi nis he d by

the tim e he is tw en ty -o ne . ” D r. F ie lds r ep eate d hi s c onc lus ionthat the r isk 4 to the publ ic , if Ch ild re m ai ne d inastr uc tur ed tr eatm en t pr ogr am

f or aw hil e, w oul d 5 be ve ry

low

. A s lo ng a s C hil d “ stay s un de r the thu m b of the c ourt” w hen he 6 transition s into th e com m unity , C hild “ will not pose a threat to the com m unity .” Dr

. 7 Fi el ds a lso c onc lud ed

that Chi ld shoul d not “ be se nte nc ed as a j uve nil e, do s om ethin g 8 fo r t wo an da h al f yea rs , a n dcu th i m l o o s e t h e d ay h e tu rn s t we n t y-o n e. Th at d o es n ’t 9 se em ap pr op ria te to m e.” 10 { 35} D r. F ie lds r ep eate d hi s re co m m en da tio n late r on, r ec om m en din g th at

Ch ild be 11 treated f

or “ a m inim

um period of five addi t i o nal y ears. ” H e and defense c ouns el 12 dis cu sse d th e de ve lop m en t of a ch ild ’ s fr ont al lob es , w hic h ar e not f ull y f orm ed unt il 13 the a ge of

tw en ty -thr ee or

the ag e of tw en ty -s ix. D r. F ie lds w as ind et er m ina te about 14 the exact age at which the fr ontal lob es are fully form ed: “ I w ould n’ t be surprised that 15 in som e case s it would take long er and in so m e case s it would probably take shorter” 1 6 b ec au s e “th er e’s n o t h i n g m ag i c ab o u ta p art i cu l ar ag e. ” Dr

. Fi el d s re p ea t ed , “ t h er e’s 17 no m ea sur e tha t y ou c ando now an d say . . . [ Ch ild ] w ill ha ve f

ull y f orm ed e xe cu tiv e 18 func tio nin g and ful ly fo rm ed fr ont al lob es at the ag e of tw en ty -o ne an d aha lf or the 19 ag e of tw en ty -f our [. ] ” H e sa id Chi ld nee de d to be re as se sse d at age tw en ty -thr ee by25

1 tr eatm en t pr of

es sio na ls and pr oba tio n off ic er s. Co unse l the n aske d Dr

. F ie lds : “ T his 2 fully developed [frontal lobe issue, ]

. . . it waver s by person. It c an happen earlier than 3 [a ge ] tw en ty -thr ee . D o y ou h av e an y be lie f tha t w oul d happ en ?” Dr

. Fi el ds r ep lie d, 4 “ I w oul d se ri ousl y

doubt tha t anythi ng unde r fi ve y ears w oul d suf fi ce to p ro duc e the 5 kind s of changes that I think [Child] needs to undergo before being d eem ed 6 ap pr opr ia te to re le as e fr om c ourt su pe rv isi on[

. ] ” H e co nti nue d, “ I’ m not ta lki ng a bout 7 fro nt al lo be s n ow, I’m

jus t t al ki ng a b ou t. . . if we jus t l ook at wh at h e did and what 8 are, at least as I delineated them and as I see them , the psy cholog ical m akeup he has 9 an d p r o b l e m s h e h a s , I j u s t d o n ’ t s e e t h a t s o o n e r t h a n t h a t i s g o i n g t o suf fi ce to 10 pr od uc e th e k in ds of c ha ng es th atI th in k n eed to happ en .” 11 { 36} Fi na lly , the c ourt he ar d te sti m ony f ro m D r. G eo rg e D avis, apsy ch ia tr ist 12 em ploy ed by

CY FD and called by

Child. D r. Davis did not testify about whether 13 Ch ild w oul d be r eh ab ili ta te d by the ag e of

tw en ty -o ne . H e te sti fi ed about Y outh 14 D ia gnos tic Ce nte r’ s (Y D C) ca pa ci ty to ad dr es s Ch ild ’ s ne ed s, co nc lud ing that it 15 co uld in fa ct m ee t his ne ed s. H e w as a ske d if the re is an ythi ng Y D C c oul d do to he lp 16 Ch ild w he n he r ea ch es th e ag e of tw en ty -o ne to en sur e he r ei nte gr at ed int o so ci ety 17 ap pr opr ia te ly

. D r. D av is dis cu sse d the av ai la bil ity of the supp ort of

fe re d, inc lud ing 18 discharge planners, a m edical planner w ho arranges psy chiatric and o t h er sim ilar 19 appoin tm ents depending on the offender’ s needs, and transition coordin ators who ar e26

1 inv olv ed

in oth er a spe ct s of

r ei nte gr at ion , suc h a s e m plo ym en t and e duc at ion 2 oppo rtunities. Dr . D avis described the cut-off a t ag e t wenty -one as “ not id eal 3 be c au s e . . . i t ’ s j u s t l i k e a d r o p o f f , ” w h i c h i s w h y Y D C m a k e s a n ef fo rtto ha ve 4 de lin que nt o ff

en de rs e nte r a rein te gr at ionc en te r w ithe noug h ti m e to s et up 5 co m m uni ty c ont ac ts f

or the of fe nde r, part ic ip at e in sc hool pr ogr am s, a nd f ind 6 em plo ym en t. 7 3. Th e A m en ab ili ty D ec isi on 8 { 37} A ft er

a ll the w itn es se s ha d te sti fi ed , the dis tr ic t c ourt ov er the c our se of

ne ar ly 9 tw o ho ur s or al ly

sum m ar iz ed —bu t di d no t m ak e fi ndi ngs ab out —m os t of

the 10 te stim on y . T he c ourt di d no t su m m ar iz e the de te ct ive s’ te sti m ony , c om m en tin g 11 instead that it “ fo cu s ed q u i t e fr ankly on the crim e . . . I ’ m

not go ing ov er that 12 te st im on y .” 13 { 38} T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n re ad al oud Se ct ion s 32A -2 -2 0( B) (1 ) an d ( 2)

. O bse rv ing 14 tha t the re ha d be enno e vid en ce pr es en te d r eg ar din g th e Se ct ion 32A -2 -2 0( B) (2 ) 15 fi ndi ng, that Chi ld wa s e lig ibl e fo r co m m itm en t t o an in sti tut ionf or c hil dr enw ith 16 de ve lop m en ta l di sa

bil iti es or

m en ta l di sor de rs , the c ourt st at ed that i t “ fi nds 17 ac co rd ing ly ” but

not ed that th e qu es tio n un de r Se ct ion32A -2 -2 0( B) (1 ) re m ai ne d: 18 w he the r “ the ch ild is not am en ab le to tr eatm en t or re habil itatio n as a c hi ld in 1 9 av ai l ab l e f

ac i l i t i es [. ]”27

1 { 39} T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n sta te d th at “ the f oc us o f the he ar ing s ha s be enon a ll the 2 [S ec tio n 32 A -2 -2 0( C) ] f ac tor s, ” but spe ci fi ca lly ide nti fi ed the f if th, six th and s ev en th 3 fa ct or s. I t stre sse d that an am en ab ili ty he ar ing is an ev ide nti ar y he ar ing to de te rm ine 4 if the ch ild

is not am en ab le to tre atm en t, a nd o bse rv ed that the bur de n is on the S ta te 5 to m ak e tha t sh ow ing by cle ar an d conv inc ing e vid en ce . Ci tin g Rud y B. , a nd w hil e 6 ac know le dgi ng tha t “ y ou c an ’ t r ea lly f oc us o n th e ch ild

w ith out ta lki ng a bout the 7 of fe nse s c om

m itt ed , ” the dis tr ic t cour

t sta te d that our N ewMe xic o S upr em e Co urt, 8 re m ind s us tha t “ the fo cu s of am en ab ili ty he ar ing s an d the fo cu s of the fi ndi ngs is o n 9 the c hil d, not

on the part ic ular of

fe nse c om

m itt ed

. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt c ont inu ed : 10 Th e o ve rr i di ng que st i oni s c a n [ C hi l d] b e r e ha bi l i t a t e d or

t reate d 11 suf

fi ci en tly to pr ote ct

soc ie ty ’ s in te re st b y

the ti m e he r ea ch es the a ge 12 of

tw en ty -o ne ? T he Su

pr em e Court ag ai n re m ind s us that the inquir y is 13 not of

fe nse -s pe ci fi c. . . . Ba se d on the ev ide nc e th at I’ve sum m ar iz ed , 14 the te sti m ony

spe ci fi ca lly

f ro m D r. Manlo ve , to a le sse r de gr ee , to a 15 gr eate r de gr ee the te sti m ony fr om D r. Fi el ds, an d fr om D r. D av is a lon g 16 w iththe te sti m ony of tho se w ho h av e w orke d ve ry c los el y w ith[ Ch ild ] 17 at

le as t si nc e May

of 201 4 are that he is am en ab le to tr eatm en t.

. . . T he 18 que sti on i s, a nd .

. . the e le phant i n th e ro om [ is] , w ha t ha

ppe ns whe n he 19 tur

ns tw en ty -o ne ? T o qu ote Ms

. P at o, “ w e don’ t kn ow.” W e do know 20 tha t D r. F ie lds ha s w af fl ed on h is m ag ic a ge [o f] tw en ty -thr ee by say ing 21 there is no m agic age, has al s o s t at ed that for som e y outh that 22 developm ent occurs ear lie r an d for som e y outh it occurs later. Dr

. 23 Mohandie, by his ow n adm issio n, his task wa s to dete rm in e w h ether 24 [C hil d] w as ins an e. H is v en tur ing of f int o othe r dia gnos es , w hic h hi s 25 ap pr oa ch an d t he rep ud ia ti on of o th ers lea ve s m e wit h “I d o n ’t k no w” 26 from , I m ean, there’ s no clear and convincing evidence presented that 27 D r. Moh an die is ac curate or ina cc ur at e. I n c onc lus ion , the c ourt f ind s 28 tha t [ Ch ild ] , ba se d onthe te sti m ony pr es en te d, ha s no t be enf ound to be 29 not

a m en ab le to tr eatm en t i n a va ila ble j uve nil e fa ci lit ie s.28

1 { 40} T he dis tr ic t c ourt si gne d an a m en ab ili ty or de r pr ep ar ed

by Ch ild , statin g: 2 [T ] his court being sufficiently inform ed, F IN DS : 3 1. The State f ailed to prove by

clear and convin cing evidence 4 tha t [ Ch ild ] is not a m en ab le to tr eatm en t or r eh ab ili ta tio n as a ch ild

in 5 av ai la

ble f ac ili tie s, a nd 6 2. [ Ch ild ] is not e lig ibl e fo r co m

m it m en t to a n in sti tut ionf or 7 ch ildre n w ithde ve lop m en ta l di sa bil iti es or m en ta l di sor de rs . 8 IT I S T H E RE FO RE O RD E RE D that [ Ch ild ] w ill be subj ec t to a 9 juv en il e d is po si ti on [.] 10 4. A na lys is 11 { 41} T he S ta te a rg ue s th at the dis tr ic t cour

t a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

f ai lin g to 12 co nsi de r an d m ak e fi ndi ngs on the fi rs t four sta tut or y f ac tor s, na m el y , the se ri ousn es s 13 of the of fe nse ; wh ethe r it w as co m m itt ed in ana ggr es siv e, vio le nt, pr em ed itate d, or 14 wil l fu l m anner; w hether a f irear m wa s used; and whether it resulted in personal 15 inj ur y . S ec tio n 32 A -2 -2 0( C) (1 )- (4 ). T he S ta te a lso a rg ue s th at f ai lin g to f ind Ch ild 16 not am enable to treatm ent constitu tes an abuse of d i s cr et ion because “ the evidence 17 w as unc ontra dic te d th at [ Ch ild ] r equir ed

c ont inu ed

tr eatm en t until at le as t the a ge of 18 [twe nt y -th ree].” 19 { 42} W e rev ie w th e am en ab il it y de te rm in a t io n fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Sosa , 20 1997 -N MSC -0 32 , ¶ 12. T his Co urt “ w ill f ind a n a buse of dis cr et ionw he n th e 21 [d istri ct ] c ourt’ s de ci sio n is c le ar ly ag ai ns t the log ic a nd e ff ec t of the f ac ts and29

1 circum stances of the case. ” Id

. ¶ 7 (internal quotation m arks an d ci tation om itted). 2 Additionally , “ a trial c ourt abuses its discretion when it exercises its d iscretion based 3 on a m isund erstanding of the law. ” Sta te v . V igi l , 201 4- N MC A -0 96, ¶

20, 336 P

. 3d 4 38 0. 5 { 43} Ba se d onit s di sc our se a t the c onc lu si on of the a m en ab ili ty he ar ing a nd the 6 or de r iss ue d a ft er

w ar ds, w e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t co urt ab use d its dis cr et ionf or 7 thr ee r ea sons : ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to co nsi de r an d m ak e fi ndi ngs on a ll of the 8 sta tut or ily

r equir ed f ac tor s of S ec tio n 32 A -2 -2 0( C) ; ( 2) it ba se d it s f

ind ing s inthe 9 am enability order on a m isapprehensio n of the m eaning and im port of Rud

y B. ; and 10 (3 ) it m isunde rs too d, a nd the n arb itr ar ily dis re ga rd ed , the unc ontra dic te d te sti m ony 11 of the e xpe rt s w ho t es tif

ie d spe ci fi ca lly ab out Ch ild ’ s pr ospe ct s f or r eh ab ili ta tio n by 12 th e ag e o f twe nt y -o ne . 13 i . T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t A b u s e d i t s D i s c r e t i o n b y F a i l i n g t o C o n s i d e r a n d M a ke 14 Find in gs on All of t he Sta tuto ry Fact or s o f Sec tio n 3 2A- 2- 20 (C)

. 15 { 44} T he dis tr ic t co ur t sum m ar iz ed the te sti m ony

a t the e nd o f the a m en ab ili ty 16 hearing. I t also acknowledged that several detectives spoke about th e circ um stances 17 of t he c r i m e a nd t he de a t hs of t he f a m i l y m e m

be r s, a nd no t e d t he t e st i m ony of D r. 18 K ri nsky , the m ed ic al e xa m ine r w hose te sti m ony la id the f ound at ionf

or intro duc ing 19 various exhib its, including autopsyreports and ph otog raphs. T he district court 20 expressly

ref used to consider the testim ony of the detectives and the m edical30

1 ex amin er , st at i n g t h at i t“ fo cu s [e d ] qu i t e f ra n k l y o n t h e c ri m e” an dco n cl u d i n g “ I’m 2 no t g oi ng ov er t ha t t es ti m on y .” 3 { 45} T he m er e re ci ta tio n of te sti m ony

c onc er nin g th e sta tut or

y f ac tor s and the 4 explicit r efusal to consider testim ony concerning the first four fa ctors constitu tes an 5 ab us e o f di s cret io n. Su m m ari zi ng th e ev id en ce i s n ot su ffi ci en t. Cf

. Mosley v. 6 M agno lia P etrol eu m Co

. , 1941 -N MS C- 028, ¶ 10, 45 N

. M. 230, 11 4 P .2d 740 7 (c an ce lin g af

ind ing of f ac t tha t w as sim

ply astate m en t r eg ardi ng th e te sti m ony of 8 w itn es se s) ; Sta te e

x re l. H ughes v . Ci ty of A lbu que rque , 199 1- N MC A -1 38, ¶ ¶ 14- 16, 9 113 N.M. 209, 824 P.2d 349 (in lig ht of Mosley , ex amin i n g ad m i n i s t ra t i v e a g en cy’s 10 decision to determ i n e i f agency m erely rec ited witness testim ony ); A dam s v . B d. of 11 Re view of I

ndus . Co mm’n , 821 P

. 2d 1 , 6 ( U tah C t. App. 199 1) ( de te rm ini ng tha t, 1 2 while tribunal's written de ci s i o n “ co n t ai n [e d ] an i n fo rmat i v e s u m m ar y o f t h e e v i d en ce 13 pr es en te d, suc h ar eh ears al of c ontra dic tor

y e vid en ce doe s no t c onst itu te f ind ing s of 14 fa ct ”; f

ind ing s of

f ac t m ust state w ha t “ in f

ac t oc curr ed , not m er el y w ha t the 15 co ntr ad ic tor

y ev ide nc e ind ic at es m igh t ha ve oc curr ed ”)

. It doe s not equa te to m ak ing 16 fin di ng s, se e Sosa , 199 7- N MS C- 032, ¶ 8, or ev en to co nsi de ri ng, i. e. , w ei ghi ng and 17 ba la nc in g, th e st atut or y fact or s. Se e D oe , 197 9- N MC A -1 22, ¶ 13. I m portantl y , “ none 18 of tho se fa ct or s, standi ng a lon e, is dis posi tiv e. T he [ dis tr ic t] c ourt must consider each31

1 of them

. . . i n de te rm ini ng w he the r the c hil d is a m en ab le to tr eatm en t or 2 rehabilitation.” Jones , 20 10 -NMSC -0 12 , ¶ 41 (em ph as is ad de d)

. 3 { 46} Furthe rm or e, f

our of the e num er at ed

f ac tor s r equir e co nsi de ratio n of the f ac ts 4 an d c ir cu m stanc es surro unding the c om m iss ionof

the c ri m es , w he re c onsi de ratio n 5 m ean s “ to th in k abo ut [th e] evi de nc e wit h a de gr ee o f care an d c au ti on .” D oe , 1979

- 6 N MC A -1 22, ¶

13; see § 32 A -2 -2 0( C) (1 )- (4 ) (r equir ing co ns ide ratio n of the 7 se ri ousn es s of

the of fe nse , w he the r it w as c om m itt ed in an a ggr es siv e, vio le nt, 8 pr em ed itate d, or

w ill fu l m an ne r, w he the r a fi re ar m w as use d, an d whe the r the of fe nse 9 wa s com

m itted against person s or property ). The district court’ s refusal to consider, 10 or e ve n r ev ie wa nd s um

m ar iz e the te sti m ony

about the c ri m es a s it

did the te sti m ony 11 co nc ern in g t he ot he r st atut or y fact or s, co ns ti tu te s an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. 12 { 47} Ina ddi tio n, a ft er r ea din g th e fa ct or s a lou d, the c ourt st at ed that “ the f

oc us o f 13 th e he ari ng s ha s be en on al l of th e fac to rs . . . and , ve ryim portant ly , ” em

pha siz ing the 14 se ve nthf

ac tor , (C )( 7) of Se ct ion32A -2 -2 0, “ the pr ospe ct f or a de qua te pr ote ct ionof 15 the pub lic a nd the li ke lih ood of r ea sona ble re habil itatio n of

[ Ch ild

. ] ” T o th e ex te nt 16 tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt pe rc ei ve d on e of the f ac tor s to be m or e im

portant o r de se rv ing 17 of gr eate r w ei ght

to the ex cl usion of

the f ir st f our e num er at ed

f ac tor s, it abuse d it s 18 dis cr et ionby

f ai lin g to pr ope rl y

c onsi de r ea chone of

the m . I n Gonzales , upon appeal 19 of adis tr ic t c our

t fin di ng th at

the de fe ndant w as not

a m en ab le to tr eatm en t and32

1 therefore subject to an adult sentence, the defendant argued that the court had erred 2 by usi ng th e se ve n fact or s to co nt ro l, rat he r th an gu id e, it s fi nd in g. See 20 01 -NMCA3 025, ¶ 45. W e held th at o n the contrary the district court “ wa s required to consider 4 an d ba lanc e the se f

ac tor s inm ak ing it s f

ind ing [, ]” an d that “ co ntr ar y to [the 5 d] ef en da nt’ s a sse rt ionthat f

ac tor ( C) (7 ) [o f Sect io n 32 A -2 -2 0] is the onl y f ac tor 6 rel ev an t t o d et erm in in g a ch il d’s am en ab il it y to tre at m en t, we be lie ve tha t e ve ry 7 fac tor pro vi des im

portant inf orm ati on a bout

the c hil d an d the ch ild ’s pro spe ct s fo r 8 re habi litati on .” Gonzales , 200 1- N MC A -0 25, ¶ 45 ( em pha sis a dde d) ; se e als o So sa , 9 1997 -N MS C- 032, ¶

11 ( ex pla ini ng tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e ev ide nc e in 10 supp ort of

the de fe ndant’ s a m en ab ili ty , but de te rm ine d th at

it w as outw ei ghe d by 11 evidence relevant to the other statutory fac tors that weighed in favor of finding that 12 th e d efen da nt was n ot am en ab le to tre at m en t). 13 { 48} O ur

S upr em e Co urt’ s a

ppr oa chin Sosa to the appr opr ia te w ei ghi ng o f ea chof 14 the S ec tio n 32A -2 -2 0( C) fa ct or s contra sts w ith tha t t ak enby the dis tr ic t c ourt i n th is 15 ca se . I n f

ind ing the de fe ndant n ot a m en ab le to tr eatm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt i n Sosa 16 “ [a ] s r equir ed

by statut e, ” w eighe d a ll of

the f ac tor s, inc lud ing the f

ir st f our . 199 7- 17 N MS C- 032, ¶

10. T he c ourt sp ec if

ic al ly dis cu sse d e ach fa ct or

a nd i ts e ff

ec t onthe 18 de te rm ina tio n: “ [t ] he se ri ous na tur e of [ the de fe ndant’ s] of

fe nse , w hic h r e s u l t e d

i nthe 19 death of a y oung m an, w eighed in favor of sentencing [the d ef en d an t ] as an33

1 ad ult [, ]

. . . [ t] he pr em ed itate d and v iol en t natur e of the sh oo ti ng al so w ei ghe d in 2 favor of se nte nc ing [th e de fend an t] a s an a dul t” ; and, “ [t ] he of fe nse w as a ga ins t a 3 pe rs on and r es ult ed

in a fata l pe rs onal in

jury , a lso le ndi ng s uppo rt to ana dul t 4 sentence.” Id

. O ur

S upr em e Co urt a ff

irm ed the distri ct c ourt’ s f

ind ing of non 5 am en ab ili ty

“ [i ] n li ght

of the j udge ’ s m ethodi ca l doc um en ta tio n of his c onsi de ratio n 6 of the e vid en ce a s a

ppl ie d to the r equis ite sta tut or y fa ct or s, ” and co nc lud ed that “ the 7 dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e a re as one d and j ust if ie d dete rm ina tio n that

[ the de fe ndant] sho uld 8 be sentenced as an adult.” Id

. ¶ 12; se e id

. (h old ing that the c ourt m ust m ak e fi ndi ngs 9 on th e se ve n s ta tu to ry

fact or s i n S ect io n 3 2A- 2- 20 (C))

. 10 { 49} In the abs e nc e o f a ny s i m i l a r d oc um e nt a t i on , w e m

us tr e vi e wt he d i strict 11 co urt’ s de ci sio n in thi s ca se fo r an ab use of dis cr et ionba se d on ly

on the sin gle -p ag e 12 order finding the State had failed to prove by cl ea r an d convin cing evidence that 13 Child was not am enabl e t o t reatm ent and on th e oral discussion of the testim ony at 14 the e nd o f the a m en ab ili ty he ar ing in w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt s ta ted tha t i t ne ed not 15 reviewthe testim ony

concerning the com

m issio n o f t h e cr im es. W hile the district 16 co urt’ s du ty

to ex pla in h owit w ei ghe d and bal an ce d th e sta tut or y f ac tor s is im

portant 17 in every

case, it is especially

im portant in a case like this one, wher e severa l statutory 18 fa ct or s f

oc us d ir ec tly on the co m

m iss ion of fi ve “ hor

ri fi c” kil lin gs w ithtw o f

ir earm s, 19 al l of w hic h we igh ed ag ai nst an am en ab ili ty de te rm ina tio n, a nd b ec au se thr ee e xpe rt s34

1 (d isc uss ed

m or e fu lly

be low ) ag re ed

that C hil d co uld not be r eh ab ili ta te d by the a ge 2 of twenty -one sufficient to protec t the publ ic, which also w eighed a g ai n s t an 3 am enab i l i t y d et er m i n at i o n . To m ak e a d et er m i n at i o n t h at t h e S t at e h ad n o tes t ab l i shed 4 tha t C hil d w as not

a m en ab le to tr eatm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt ne ed ed to ide nti fy

the 5 spe ci fi c ev ide nc e, thr ough m ethodi ca l doc um en ta tio n, tha t supp orte d its de ci sio n and 6 explain ho w and why

that evidence o utweighed the num erous factors that supported 7 a finding that Chil d is not am enable to treatm ent. Thus, we conclude that the district 8 co urt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

f ai lin g to c ons id er an d m ak e fi ndi ngs on any of the 9 sta tut or

y fa ct or s. N ex t, w e tur

n to the ap pa re nt re as on the dis tr ic t co urt d id not 10 co nsi de r ea chof

the statut or

y f ac tor s. 11 ii. The D istrict Co ur t Ba s ed I ts Fi nd i ngs in the Am enability Ord er on a 12 Misappre hension of t he M eaning of Rudy B. 13 { 50} In disregarding the first four Sec tion 3 2 A- 2-20(C) fa ctors, the district court 14 re lie d up on Rud

y B. , w hic h it

too k to stand f

or the pr opos iti on tha t an a m en ab ili ty 15 de te rm ina tio n f

oc use s on the c hil d, not

on the part ic ular of

fe nse c om

m itt ed by the 16 child. T he district court expressed its understanding of the m eaning of Rudy B . thre e 17 tim es : ( 1) our

N ewMe xic o S upr em e Co urt r em in ds us tha t “ the f oc us o f the 18 am en abil ity

he ar ing s and the f

oc us o f the f

ind ing s is on the c hil d, not on the 19 pa rt ic ular of

fe nse co m

m itt ed ”; (2 ) “ [o ur ] Su

pr em e Court

in Rudy B

. te lls us tha t the 20 fo cu s of

the f ind ing s se t ou t i n [ Se ct ion ] 32A -2 -2 0 m ust be on the ch ild , not on the35

1 particular off

ense com m itted”; and (3) “ [our] Suprem e Court again re m inds u s that 2 the inquir

y is not of fe nse -s pe ci fi c, a nd i t c au tio ns tha t the fal li bi li ty a nd l ac k of 3 pr ec isi on i nh eren t i n th e am en ab ili ty de te rm ina tio n r en de rs c er ta int ie s vi rt

ua lly 4 be y ond

. . . r each in m ost sit ua tio ns. ” H av ing und er sto od Rudy B

. to m ean th at the 5 am en ab ili ty de te rm ina tio n depe nds on chara ct er ist ic s sp ec if ic to the of

fe nde r tha t do 6 not c onc er n th e cr im e, th e di st ric t c ourt gave m uc h le ss w ei ght , if

a ny a t a ll, to the 7 fi rs t f our statut or y fa ct or s bec au se the y co nc er n the fa ct s surr ound ing the c om m iss ion 8 of th e cri m es . 9 { 51} The district court m isund erstood the m eaning of Rudy B ., a nd the re fo re it s 10 ap pli ca

bil ity to thi s c as e, th ereby

abusi ng i ts d isc re tio n. V igi l , 20 14 -NMCA11 096, ¶ 20; see id

. (“ [A ] tr ia l c ourt a buse s it s di sc re tio n whe n it exe rc ise s it s di sc re tio n 12 ba se d onam isunde rs tand in g of the law . ”)

. I n Rud

y B. , the def

endant appealed an 13 or de r fi ndi ng h im

not a m en ab le to tr eatm en t an d se nte nc ing him a s an a dul t, a rg uin g 14 tha t the Si xth A m en dm en t af fo rd ed him the ri ght to hav e a j ur y m ak e the f

ind ing s on 15 th e am en ab il it y

de te rm in at io n. Rud

y B. , 201 0- N MS C- 045, ¶ 2. I n di sc uss ing thi s 16 issue, our Su p re m e Court stated that the findings required by Sec tion 3 2A-2-20(B) 17 “ are not offense-specif ic[, ] ” and “ the focus of t he findings at issue is on th e ch ild , not 18 on the particular offense c omm itted.” Rud y B. , 20 10 -NMSC -0 45 , ¶ 34

.36

1 { 52} T he c ourt di d no t, how ev er , pr onounc e the of fe nse -s pe ci fi c fa ct or s of

S ec tio n 2 32A -2 -2 0( C) a s in fe ri or , or le ss i m portant, or

som eh owde se rv in g of le sse r w ei ght 3 w he n de te rm ini ng w he the r the ind ivi dua l c hil d i s am e nable to tr eatm en t. I m m ed ia te ly 4 fo llo w ing the se sta te m en ts, the c ourt e xpl ai ne d th at “ the part ic ular ci rc um stanc es of 5 the c hil d’ s of

fe nse m ay

ha ve so m e bear ing on this de ci sio n” be ca use “ som e of

the 6 factors that the j udge m ust we igh un de r Sect io n 32 A-2 -2 0( C) are of fen se sp eci fic ,” 7 fo r ex am

ple , w he the r the of

fe nse w as c om

m itt ed in ana ggr es siv e, vio lent, 8 pr em ed it at ed , or wi ll fu l m an ne r. Rud y B. , 2010 -N MS C- 045, ¶ 35 ( em pha sis a dde d) 9 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d e m ph as is om it te d)

. 10 { 53} Mor eo ve r, in Rud y B. , the c ourt had to exam ine the nature of the fac t o rs 11 pr ovi de d inS ec tio n 32 A -2 -2 0( C) a nd dis tin gui sh tho se r el at ing to the of fe nse f ro m 12 those relating to the charac ter of the offender, because it had to determ ine whether a 13 j udge or

a j ur y is en tit le d to m ak e the f

ind ing s r equir ed

by S ec tio n 32 A -2 -2 0( B) , a nd 14 ty pic al ly , j ur ie s m ak e fa ct

ua l fi ndi ngs sur

ro undi ng the pa rt ic ular ci rc um stanc es of the 15 of fe nse . I n othe r w o r d s , th e d i s t i n c t i o nb e tw e e no f f e n s e - s p e c i f

i c an d of fe nde r- spe ci fi c 16 fa ct or s w as dr awn in Rudy B

. , be ca use it w as r el ev an t to th e le ga l qu es tio n 17 presented—which is unrelated to the questio n presented in this appeal. That is, it w as 18 dr awn f

or pur pose s of e luc ida tin g th e na tur e of the a m en ab ili ty

inqui ry so a s to 19 ex am ine the ex te nt t o w hic h it pr es en te d ta sks that are his tor ic al ly a nd tra dit ion al ly37

1 reser ved for th e jury

and not th e j udge. T he court did no t conclude that the offense2 specific fa ctors bear le ss weight and im portance in determ inin g whether or not an 3 of fe nde r is i n f

ac t am en ab le to tr eatm en t; it co nc lud ed onl y tha t the of fe nse -s pe ci fi c 4 fa ct or s are part

of abr oa de r inqu ir

y about the de fe ndant’ s a m en ab ili ty to tr eatm en t, 5 and that lar g er i n q uiry is not “ a task traditionally perform ed by

j uries.” Rud

y B., 6 2010 -N MS C- 045, ¶

36. Rathe r than conc lud e tha t the of fe nse -s pe ci fi c fa ct or s are to 7 be giv enle ss w ei ght w he n de te rm ini ng whe the r a de fe ndant i s a m en ab le to 8 tr eatm en t— as the dis tr ic t c ourt h ere und er sto od i t t o m ean—the c ourt si m ply 9 sugg ested that the offense-specific fa ct o rs be subm itted to th e j ury during trial 10 thr oughspe ci al int er

ro ga tor ie s. Id

. 11 { 54} T he Deli nq ue nc y Act cr eat es no rig id de li ne at io n b et ween off en se -s pe ci fi c an d 12 of fe nde r- spe ci fi c fa ct or s. I t i s no t po ssi ble to ev al ua te w he the r the of fe nde r is 13 am enable to treatm ent wi t h o u t evaluating the facts of the crim es that the offender 14 co m m itt ed , be cau se th e of

fe nde r’ s c ondu ct

in the pa st i s r el ev an t t o w he the r the 15 of fe nde r pose s ar isk

of dange r to the publ ic

. Fo r ex am ple , co nsi de ri ng w he the r the 16 offender c omm itted the cr i m es in a violent, aggressive, or prem editated m anner, as 1 7 re qu i re d by

Sec tion 3 2A-2-20(C) (2), ne ce s s ar i l y en t ai l s ex amin at i o n o f t h e o ff en d er ’s 18 pe rs ona . T he dis tr ic t c ourt i tse lf a cknow le dge d th at

the dis tin ct ionis blurr ed : “ y ou 19 can’ t r ea lly

f oc us o n th e ch ild

w ith out ta lki ng a bout the of fe nse s c om

m itt ed

. ” T his38

1 Court previousl y has com m ented on the ins eparability of the fac tors, explaining th at 2 the four factors that focus on the com m issio n of the crim e ar e to be considered insofar 3 as the y pe rt ai n to the de fe ndant’ s lik el iho od of r eh ab ili ta tio n: “ T he de te rm ina tio n of 4 a child’ s prospects for rehabilitation is a com plicated and difficult q uestion that 5 re qui re s c onsi de ratio n of ac hil d’ s e nvi ro nm en t, ag e, m at ur ity , pa st b eh av ior , a nd 6 pr ed ic tio ns o f fu tur e be ha vio r as w el l a s spe ci fics of the off

en se as the

y re lat e to t

he 7 p ros pe ct s of re habi litati on .” See G onza les , 2 0 0 1 -N M CA -0 25, ¶ 26 (em phasis add ed). 8 {55} Insum , w e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt m isa pp reh ende d th e m eanin g of 9 Rud y B. , a nd the re fo re f

ai le d to c onsi de r an d m ak e fi ndi ngs on e ac h of the 10 en um erat edfact or s o f Sec ti on 32 A-2 -2 0( C), res ul ti ng in an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. 11 iii. The D istrict Cour t Ab used Its Discre tion by D isregarding the Un anim ous 12 Testim ony That Child Would Not Be Rehabilitated by Age Tw enty- One. 13 { 56} Co ns is te nt wit h t he ge ne ral rul e, see St atev . A lbe ric o , 199 3- N MS C- 047, ¶ ¶ 36- 14 37, 116 N

. M. 156, 861 P. 2d 192, a dis tr ic t co urt co nduc tin g ana m en ab ili ty he ar ing 15 m ay dis re ga rd

e xpe rt te sti m ony . Se e, e . g. , Gonzales , 2 0 0 1 -N M CA -0 2 5 , ¶4 0 (“W e 16 recognize that the fa ct[-] finder is entitled t o disregard evidence presented by either 17 pa rty a nd to disr eg ar d the te sti m ony of e xpe rt s[

. ] ” (c itatio n om itt ed )) ; se e als o I n re 18 E rnesto M. , Jr

. , 1996- N MC A -0 39, ¶ 14, 121 N

. M. 562 , 915 P

. 2d 3 18 ( “ It is w el l 19 settled in NewMexico that a fa ct finder m ay disregard the opinio ns of experts.”)

.39

1 { 57} Im

portantly , how ever, the district court is not fre e to arbit r ar i l y d i sr e ga r d e xp e rt 2 te sti m ony , a nd i nst ea d m ust ha ve som e ra tio na l basi s for doi ng so. “ [T ] he te sti m ony 3 of aw itn es s, w he the r int er es te d or dis int er es te d, c an not arbi tra ril ybe dis re ga rd ed

by 4 the trier of the facts[. ] ” M ed le r v . H en ry , 1940 -N MS C- 028, ¶ 20, 44 N

. M. 275 , 101 5 P. 2d 398 (e m

pha sis a dde d) ; se e id

. (n oti ng tha t the tr ie r of f ac ts d oe s no t arb itr ar ily 6 dis re ga rd

w itn es s te sti m ony , e ve n te sti m ony that i s not dir ec tly

c ontra dic te d, if

the 7 w itn es s is im

pe ac he d, the te sti m ony is equ ivo ca l or im pr oba ble , the re a re sus pic iou s 8 circum stances concerning the transaction testified to, or “ legitim ate infer ences m ay 9 be dr awn f

ro m the f ac ts and c ir cu m stanc es of the c as e tha t c ont rad ic t or c as t 10 reas on ab le do ub t up on th e tru th or accu racy of th e o ral tes ti m on y ”). A cc ord , Corley 11 v. Corley , 1979 -N MS C- 040, ¶ 6, 92 N

. M. 716, 594 P. 2d 1 172; A lto V ill

. Se rv s. Co rp. 12 v. N. M. Pub. Serv. Comm ’n , 1 9 7 8

- N M S C

- 0 8 5 , ¶ 1 4 , 9 2 N

. M

. 3 2 3 , 5 8 7 P

. 2d 1 334; 13 Estate of Scott v. N

ew , N o. A -1 -C A -3 45 66, m em . op. ¶ 4 (N

. M. Ct

. App. S ep t. 17, 14 2015 ) (non-prece dential) (re ferr ing to the ‘ Medler rule’ ). 15 {5 8 } In D oe , w e applied the “ Medler ru le ” in the co nte xt of an am en ab ili ty he ar ing

. 16 See D oe , 197 9- N MC A -1 22, ¶ 13. T he re , the state c ha rg ed a ch il d who se gun 17 dis ch ar ge d duri ng a

de er hun t, kil li ng an other

pe rs on i n th e hunt ing party , w ith 18 m ur der. Id . ¶

1. U nder the predecessor statute to the De linqu ency Ac t, the district 19 court, sitting as the children’ s court, w as au thorized to transfer the c ase to the district40

1 co ur t s o t ha t t he ch il d co ul d be tri ed as an adul t. Id

. Be fo re the c ourt c oul d or de r the 2 tr an sf er , it ha d to co nsi de r, sim ilar to S ec tio n 32 A -2 -2 0( B) , “ w he the r the c hil d is 3 am enable to treatm ent or rehabilitation as a child throu gh available facilities.” D oe , 4 1979 -N MC A -1 22, ¶

8 ( al te ratio n and i nte rn al quo tati on m ar ks o m itt ed ); se e als o 5 § 32 A -2 -2 0( A )( 4)

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt or de re d th e tr an sf er a nd the c hil d a

pp eal ed , 6 ar gu ing that the c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n inor de ri ng the tr an sf er giv enthat the 7 ev id en ce o f hi s amenab il it y was u nc on tra di ct ed

. D oe , 19 79 -NMCA- 122, ¶ 8. T his 8 Co urt obse rv ed tha t the dir ec t e vid en ce that the c hil d w as a m en ab le to tr eatm en t or 9 re habil itatio n—the te sti m ony of his hig h sc hool pr inc ipal a nd a dia gnos tic 10 evaluation—was uncontradicted, and that no other subs tantial evidence in the r ecord 11 cal le d am en ab il it y

in to qu es ti on . Id

. ¶¶

9- 12. O n th is b as is, a nd r el y ing on Medler , the 12 D oe co urt det er

m ine d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d a

buse d it s di sc re tio n indis re ga rd ing 13 th e u nc on tra di ct edev id en ce o f am en ab il it y . Id

. ¶ 13. 14 { 59} Gonzales a ndIn r e Ern es to M., Jr. ill ustrate appl ic at ionof the sa m e pr inc ipl e 15 in the co nte xt of an am en ab ili ty he ar ing unde r curr en t l aw . I n Gonzales , the de fe ndant 16 ch al le nge d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm in at io n th at he w as not

a m en ab le to tr eatm en t 17 as a j uvenile, arguing am ong o the r grounds th at the court ignored uncon tradicted 18 ex pe rt te sti m ony

that he w as a m en ab le to tr eatm en t. 200 1- N MC A -0 25, ¶ 41. T his 1 9 Co u rt re

je ct ed t h e a rg u m en tan daf fi r me d , b u to n l y af

t ern o t i n g t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s41

1 ba sis fo r dis re ga rd ing the ex pe rt te sti m ony : the ex pe rt s’ opi nion s wer e not 2 u n qu al i fi ed , t h ei r o p i n i o n s we re fo rmedwi t h o u tfu l l kn o wl ed g e o f t h e d ef en d an t ’s 3 his tor y , a nd w hil e one e xpe rt “ fe lt tha t [ the de fe ndant] w as a m en ab le to 4 tre at m en t, . . . eve ryth in g e ls e sh e sa id in di cat edth atsh e rea ll y ha d s eri ou s d ou bt s.” 5 Id

. ¶¶ 4 3- 44

. 6 { 60} T his Co urt un de rt ook a sim ilar an al y sis in In re Ern es to M

. , J r. Whil e ag ai n 7 ac know le dgi ng tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt w as e nti tle d to dis re ga rd the e xpe rt s’ te sti m ony 8 that t he defendant wa s am enable to treatm ent, w e observed that the district court 9 pr ope rl y

m igh t have f

ound the vic tim ’ s de sc ri pti on o f th e vi olent c ri m e in 10 que sti on— “ tha t [ the c ] hil d initi at ed the atta ck a nd t ook ple as ur e in hum ili at ing a nd 11 to rtu rin g [t he v]ic ti m ”—m or e pe rs ua si ve th an th e ex pe rts ’ op in io ns . 19 96 -NMCA12 039, ¶ 14. I n a ddi tio n, one of

the tw o a m en ab ili ty

e xpe rt s ha d c onc ed ed

ala ck of 13 cert ai nt y ab ou t th e am en ab il it y de te rm in at io n. Id

. ¶ 15. T his e vid en ce sup porte d th e 14 district co u rt’ s decision n ot to accept the experts’ opini ons th at generally favored 15 am en ab ili ty

a nd i ts d et er

m ina tio n th at

the de fe ndant s houl d be se nte nc ed a s an a dul t. 16 Id

. 17 { 61} H er e, thr ee e xpe rt w itn es se s—D rs . Mo ha ndie (the S ta te ’ s e xpe rt ), Manlo ve 18 (Child’ s expert ) an d Fields (the district court’ s expert)—testified unanim ouslythat 19 Child w as not am enable to r ehabilitation by age twenty -one. No other direct evidence42

1 w as pr es en te d re ga rd ing the sub j ec t of a m en ab ili ty

by a ge tw en ty -o ne : D r. D av is d id 2 not a d d r e s s t h e s ub

j e c t , a n dM s . A i k e n s a i dt h a th e i s “ t r e a t ab l e ” b u tt h a th e s t i ll 3 ne ed s m or e tr eatm en t. S he did not state a n op ini on a

bout his r eh ab ilitat io n by

a ge 4 twen ty-on e. 5 { 62} Init s c onc lud ing r em ar ks, the dis tr ic t cour

t art ic ula te d, a s it s sol e gr ound f or 6 dis re ga rd ing a ll of

the e xpe rt s’ opi nio ns, tha t Dr

. Fi el ds had “ w af fl ed ”: “ W e do know 7 tha t D r. F ie lds ha s w af fl ed on his m ag ic ag e [o f] tw en ty -thr ee by say ing the re is no 8 m agic age, has also state d that for som e y outh that developm ent occurs ear lier[. ] ” In 9 fa ct , how ev er , the re co rd re fl ec ts tha t D r. Fi el ds did not equiv oc at e o n h is opinio n 10 tha t Chi ld cou ld not be re habil itate d by a ge tw en ty -o ne suc h th at the int er es ts o f the 11 publ ic w ould be protected. Dr . F ields acknowledged that develop m ent of the frontal 12 lob e, the part

of the br ai n th at

c ontro ls i m

pul siv en es s, m ay

or m ay not be c om ple te 13 by a ge tw en ty -o ne . Bu t D r. F ie lds m ad e cl ear tha t the ind ef ini te ti m ing of

f ro nta l l obe 14 de ve lop m en t di d no t a ff ec t hi s op ini on tha t Ch ild w oul d no t be r eh ab ili ta te d by a ge 15 twen ty-on e. On t he co nt rary, after m ak ing his com

m en t a bout the unc er

ta in t im ing 16 of fr ont al lob e dev el opm en t, D r. Fi el ds re ite rate d his fir m be lie f tha t, be ca

use a t l ea st 17 another five y ears of t h er ap y would be necessary

to work through Child ’ s other 18 psy ch olo gic al iss ue s, Ch ild w oul d no t be suf

fi ci en tly tr eate d or

r eh ab ili ta te d by

a ge 19 tw en ty -o ne to pr ote ct soc ie ty ’ s in te re sts :43

1 I w oul d se ri ousl y doubt tha t an ythi ng unde r fi ve y ears w oul d su ff ic e to 2 produce the kind s of ch an g es that I think he needs to undergo before 3 be ing de em ed

appr opr ia te to re le as e fr om . . . c ourt su

pe rv isi on, or 4 pr ob at io n s up erv is io n. Re gard l es s, I ’m not talking abo ut fron tal lob es 5 now. I’m jus t ta lk in g ab ou t, y ou kn ow, . . . if we jus t l ook at wh at h e did 6 and

. . . the psy ch olo gic al m ak eu p he has an d pr obl em s he has , . . . I jus t 7 don’ t se e tha t so oner than th at i s go ing to suf fic e to p rodu ce . . . the 8 ki nd

s o f ch an ge s t ha t I t hi nk

ne ed to ha pp en . 9 The district court’ s “ wa ffling” com m ent thus reflects a basic m isund erstanding of Dr. 10 Fi el ds’ te sti m ony . A c our t’ s e xe rc ise of discr et ion“ m ust be c onsi ste nt w iththe 11 evidence.” Sc hue rm ann v. Sc hue rm ann , 1980 -N MS C- 027, ¶ 8, 94 N

. M. 81, 607 P. 2d 12 619. Be ca

use it s arti cu la te d ba sis f or dis re ga rd ing the unanim ous ex pe rt te sti m ony 13 re ga rd ing am en ab il ity is unsu ppor te d by the r ec or d, the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s 14 dis cr et ion

. 15 { 63} Sta te v . T

ruj ill o , 200 9- N MC A -1 28, 147 N

. M. 334 , 222 P

. 3d 1 040, stands fo r 16 the propos ition that unanim ous expert w itness testim ony regar ding am enability

m ay 17 be r ej ec te d if

it is outw ei ghe d by non- ex pe rt ev ide nc e beari ng on the sev enS ec tio n 18 32A -2 -2 0( C) f

ac tor s. I n Tr uji llo , w e obse rv ed : 19 This case essentially sets expert o p inion against facts and infere nce 20 dr awn by

the c ourt fr omf

ac ts s ur ro undi ng the c ri m e an d [ the 21 d] ef

en da nt’ s pr ior

c ri m ina l hi sto ry . I t i s th e fa ct [- ] fi nde r’ s pr er oga tiv e 22 to w ei gh the e vid en ce a nd to j udge the cr ed ibi lity of the w itn es se s. T he 23 court wa s free to disregard expert opinio n. It a ppears to us that th e court 24 ad equa te ly

a nd a ppr opr ia te ly

a ddr es se d a ll co nc er

ns.44

1 20 09 -NM C A -1 28 , ¶ 18 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d)

. Se e als o 2 Sosa , 1997-NMS C-032, ¶¶ 1 0 -1 1 (noting th at the district court we ighed statu tory 3 factors in determ ining the child sho uld be sentenced as an adult). 4 { 64} He re, however, we sim ply do not know what, if any , c onclusi on s the district 5 co urt m ay

or m ay no t have r ea ch ed r eg ar din g any

of the e vid en ce oth er

than th e 6 ex pe rt w itn es se s’ opi nio ns o n th e que sti on o f Ch ild ’ s a m en ab ili ty to treat m en t and 7 rehabilitation bythe tim e h e rea ches age tw enty -one. W hile non -expert testim ony wa s 8 pr es en te d th at

in th eo ry m ig ht s uppo rt a n in fe re nc e of

a m en ab ili ty , the S ta te 9 vig or ousl y

c ont es te d th e va lid ity

a nd s ign if

ic an ce of that e vid en ce . T he co urt di d no t 10 ex pla in wha t t es tim ony the c ourt f

ound c re dib le or not cr ed ibl e, an d did not m ak e an y 11 fi ndi ngs or

pr ovi de oth er

e xpl an at ionof

w ha t m at er ia l i nf

orm at ionit

gle an ed f ro m 12 th e te st im on y

th atit de em edcred ib le

. See Mosley , 194 1- NMSC -0 28, ¶ 10; Ada ms , 13 821 P. 2d a t 1, 6. I nst ea d, our ins igh t i nto the c ourt’ s r ea soni ng i s li m ite d to it s 14 st at em en t th at it wou ld no t co ns id er th e ev id en ce re ga rd in g t he fir st fou r Sec ti on 32 A15 2- 20(C) fact or s and i ts m iss ta te m en t of D r. F ie lds ’ te sti m ony

a s gr ound s f

or 16 dis re ga rd ing the e xpe rt s’ unanim ous vie wthat C hil d c oul d no t be r eh ab ili ta te d or 17 tr eate d by

a ge tw en ty -o ne . W e the re fo re m ust r ev er se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a m en ab ili ty 18 determ ination . “ Finding s of fac t which ar e not . .

. supp orted [by subst antial evidence] 19 cannot

be sus ta ine d onappe al , a nd a j udgm en t base d onsuc h f ind ing s is it se lf

w ith out45

1 su pp or t

. ” Veh n v. B er

gm an , 195 3- N MS C- 037, ¶ 22, 57 N

. M. 351 , 258 P

. 2d 7 34; 2 ac co rd , H

arr iso n v . A nim a s V

a lle y A uto & T

ruc k R ep air , 198 7- N MC A -0 17, ¶ 19, 105 3 N

. M

. 4 2 5 , 7 3 3 P

. 2 d 8 7 3 ( “ A j u d g m e n t c a n n o t b e up h e l d o n ap p e a l u n le ss t he 4 co nc lu si on up on whi ch it res ts fin ds su pp or t i n o ne or m or e fi nd in gs of f act ”.), rev’d 5 on o the r gr ound

s , 198 8- N MS C- 055, 107 N

. M. 373, 758 P. 2d 787. W e al so w ill not 6 sim ply aff irm on a “ right for any

rea son rationale.” A the rto n v . G opi n , 20 15 -NMCA7 003, ¶ 37, 340 P.3 d 63 0. T his Co urt m ay not do s o w he re it

w oul d r equir e us t o 8 “ assum e the role of the district court and delve into fact- dependent in quiries.” Sta te 9 v. Randy J. , 201 1- N MC A -1 05, ¶ 28, 150 N

. M. 683 , 265 P

. 3d 7 34. 10 { 65} W e em

pha siz e tha t our ro le a s a re vie w ing co urt is lim ite d. “ T he que sti on f or 11 this Court is n ot what it w ould

. . . [deci d e] b as ed on the testim ony presented 12 below[. ] ” Tr uji llo , 200 9- N MC A -1 28, ¶ 19. “ W e do not re w ei gh the e vid en ce a nd w ill 13 not su bstitu te our j udgm ent for that of the [district] court.” Gonzales , 20 01 -NMCA14 025, ¶ 40. T he re fo re , w e w ill not und er ta ke a n in de pe nde nt r ev ie wa nd e va lua tio n of 15 the e vid en ce be ar ing on the S ec tio n 32 A -2 -2 0( C) f ac tor s. I nst ea d w e w ill r em an d th is 16 m atte r to the dis tr ic t c ourt t o re co nsi de r the e vid en ce a nd m ak e an oth er a m en ab ili ty 17 de te rm ina tio n ina cc or da nc e wit h this op ini on, inc lud ing c onsi de ri ng and m ak ing 18 fi ndi ngs re ga rd ing a ll of the S ec tio n 32 A -2 -2 0( C) f ac tor s.46

1 5. Pr ocedur al Ram ifications on R em and 2 { 66} Given the im

m inent approach of Child’s tw en t y-fi rs tb i rt h d ay (o cc u rr i n g March 3 20, 201 8) , w e br ie fl y

a ddr es s se ve ra l iss ue s re la tin g to the c onse que nc es of our 4 ruling. First, under the De linqu ency Ac t, when a chil d reac hes age twe nty -one, C YF D 5 loses autho rity

to retain h im or h er in custody . See § 32A-2-19(B)( 1), § 32A-2-20(F). 6 T hus, a s apr ac tic al m atte r Ch ild co uld not be re tur ne d to CY FD f

or f urthe r tr eatm en t 7 an d r eh ab ili ta tio n f

oll ow ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c om ple tio n of an ot he r am en ab ili ty 8 he ar ing, ev en as sum ing the c ourt w er e to m ak e the sa m e de te rm ina tio n a s it did in 9 2016

. 10 { 67} Second, notwithstanding CY FD ’ s loss o f authority , on re m and the d i st r i c t c ou rt 11 w ill r et ai n j ur isd icti on o ve r Ch ild dur ing the pe nde nc y

of the se co nd am en ab ili ty 12 proceeding, including any appeal. The district court, a s ch ildren’ s court, possesses 13 juri sd ic ti on ov er adu lt s for offe ns es th ey co m m it te d a s ju ve ni le s. See N MS A 197 8, 14 § 32A-1-8(A ) ( 2 0 0 9 ) (provi ding that the children’ s court has “ exclusive origin al 15 j ur isd ic tio n of

a ll pr oc eed in gs unde r the Ch ildre n’ s C ode in w hic h ape rs on i s 16 ei ght ee n y ears of ag e or old er an d wa s ac hil d a t the ti m e the a lle ge d a ct in que sti on 1 7 w a s c o m

m i t t e d ” )

. F u rt h e r , t h e S t a t e t h r o u g h i t s d i s t r i c ta t t o rn e y r e t a i n s c o n t inu ing 18 juri sd ic ti on to pro se cu te th e cas e. See NMS A 1978, § 32A-1-6( A) , ( B), (F) (2005).47

1 { 68} Th i rd , a s a r es u l to f o u r r ev er s al an d re m an do f t h e 2 0 1 6 d i s p o s i t i o n , C h i l d ’s 2 status before the di s t ri ct co u rt is as if Child “ had not y et been sentenced[. ] ” See 3 U nit ed Sta tes v . R ay

ford , 552 F ed

. App’ x 85 6, 859 ( 10th C ir

. 201 4)

. T ha t i s, he is a 4 y outhf ul o ff en de r pe ndi ng a dul t se nte ncin g or j uve nil e dis posi tio n. A ny 5 de te rm ina tio n of de te nti on p en din g di spos iti on w ill be m ad e in a cc or da nc e w ith 6 Se ct ion32A -2 -1 1, S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 2, a nd S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 3. 7 { 69} Fo urth, on re m an d the pa rt ie s m ay pr es en t evi de nc e re ga rd ing the pr ogr es s of 8 Ch il d’s t reat m en t an d re ha bi li ta ti on si nc e en tr y o f th e 2 01 6 d is po si ti on . See Jones , 9 2010 -N MS C- 012, ¶ 56; se e als o State v . D oe , 1983 -N MC A -0 15, ¶ 23, 99 N

. M. 460 , 10 659 P2 d 91 2 ( sta tin g th at “ the e vid en ce to be c onsi de re d m ay be that e xis tin g a t the 11 tim e of the latest transfer hearing, in a dditi on to th at produced at the ear lier hear ing”). 12 T hus, the que sti on the di st rict c ourt e ff ec tiv el y m ust de ci de is w he the r Ch ild , now 13 twen ty-on e y ears ol d, has been “ rehabilitated or treate d sufficiently to protect 1 4 s o ci et y’ s i n t er es t s [. ]” Rud y B. , 201 0- N MS C- 045, ¶ 36. 15 CON CLU SION 16 { 70} W e re ve rs e an d va cate the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r on am en ab ili ty , an d re m an d to 17 the dis tr ic t c ourt t o r ec onsider the e vid en ce a nd m ak e an oth er a m en ab ili ty 18 de te rm ina tio n in ac co rd an ce w ith thi s opi nio n, inc lud ing co nsi de ring an d m ak ing 19 fin di ng s o n t he reco rdreg ard in g a ll of t he Sect io n 3 2A- 2- 20 (C) fa ct or s.48

1 { 71} IT IS SO ORD ERE D .

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 ST EP HE N G. F R EN C H, Ju dg e

4 WE CO NCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 6 HEN RYM. BOHN HOF F, Judge

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 8 EMIL J. KIEHN E, Judge