Opinion ID: 1199633
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The previous history of the respondent, including whether the respondent had been adjudicated a delinquent or miscreant.

Text: This factor was also in Stephens' favor. He had no prior record or history of antisocial behavior. The district court agreed. (6) The sophistication or maturity of the respondent. The district court found there was no evidence as to this factor; thus, there was no adverse finding. (7) Whether there are facilities or programs available to the court which are likely to rehabilitate the respondent prior to the expiration of the court's jurisdiction. The district court found: [T]he youth centers offer no more than the Department of Corrections has to offer adults in similar situations. Certainly there is hope for rehabilitation for both of the Respondents no matter where they are ... [but] it must first come from within. Stephens takes issue with the court's conclusions regarding juvenile programs. He contends Bruce Nystrom, Ph. D., testified that treatment in the juvenile system was much better than in the adult system. Stephens further points out that he had no prior record and thus never had the opportunity to benefit from the juvenile system. Dr. Nystrom offered testimony about Porter and whether Porter would benefit from juvenile programs. He did not offer an opinion about Stephens. Dr. Nystrom testified that the juvenile system was oriented more toward treatment than the adult system. The court's opinion of the services offered by juvenile programs is at odds with Dr. Nystrom's. The district court's opinion that, due to Stephens age, there was insufficient time for the juvenile system to rehabilitate him is relevant. Stephens was already 18 by the time of the hearing. Under the law in effect at the time of Stephens' adjudication, the juvenile system lost jurisdiction on the offender's 21st birthday. See K.S.A. 38-1604(c) (The law now provides for juvenile jurisdiction until an offender reaches the age of 23. See K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 38-1604[c].). Thus, Stephens would have spent less than 3 years in the juvenile system. The district court's finding is supported by substantial evidence. (8)Whether the interests of the respondent or of the community would be better served by criminal prosecution. The district court said: There's a strong interest in this community to be able to feel safe and if nowhere else certainly in your own home. There's a strong interest in this community that juveniles should be held accountable for their actions, and when juveniles who have the necessary intellect make adult decisions they should receive adult consequences. I see both of the Respondents in this matter had a choice back in November as to what it is they wanted to do. Stephens maintains his interests were not served by criminal prosecution. Further, he points to the absence of any prior criminal acts on his part. The State fails to cite any evidence that supports the district court's conclusory finding here. The court stated that when juveniles who have the necessary intellect make adult decisions they should receive adult consequences; yet, the court previously stated there was no evidence as to the intellect or maturity of Stephens in the record (Factor [6]). Factor (6) is designed to ascertain whether a juvenile has sophistication and maturity beyond that of a juvenile. See In re J.D.J., 266 Kan. 211, 220-21, 967 P.2d 751 (1998). There was no evidence that Stephens had a sophistication or maturity level beyond that of a juvenile. The court failed to discuss whether Stephens' interests would be served by criminal prosecution, although reference was made to the community. There was not substantial evidence in favor of adult prosecution as to factor (8). We find substantial evidence to establish factors (1), (2), (3), and (7) and apply them adversely to Stephensin favor of adult prosecution. Factors (4) and (5) were established as favorable to Stephens. There was no evidence as to factor (6). There is an absence of evidence showing factor (8) was adverse to Stephens. The district court was required to consider the eight factors set forth in K.S.A. 38-1636(e). The court was not required to make adverse findings on each of the eight factors. The insufficiency of the evidence concerning one or more factors listed in K.S.A. 38-1636(e) is not determinative. State v. Claiborne, 262 Kan. 416, Syl. ¶ 2, 940 P.2d 27 (1997). The legislature rejected a numerical quantification of factors when it said: The insufficiency of evidence pertaining to any one or more of the factors listed in this subsection shall not in and of itself be determinative of the issue. K.S.A. 38-1636(e). The question then is not whether a finding of four factors was enough, but whether there was substantial evidence to support the district court's conclusion that Stephens should be tried as an adult. Today, a juvenile aged 14 or more who is charged with an offgrid offense is presumed to be an adult. K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 38-1636(a)(2). However, under the version of K.S.A. 38-1636 in effect at the time of Stephens' hearing, the State had to present substantial evidence supporting prosecution as an adult. The record as a whole reflects there was substantial evidence to show that Stephens should have been prosecuted as an adult.