Opinion ID: 2514450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: NRS 62B.390(3)(b) requires an admission of the charged criminal conduct in order to overcome the presumption of adult certification

Text: As noted, to rebut presumptive certification under the statute at issue here, NRS 62B.390(3)(b), the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile's actions ... were substantially the result of the substance abuse or emotional or behavioral problems. In Anthony Lee R., A Minor v. State, [18] this court recognized that while drugs and emotional or behavioral problems cannot be said to cause criminal conduct, they are often overwhelming factors that contribute to a juvenile's decision to commit a crime. Consequently, we interpreted NRS 62B.390(3)(b)'s predecessor, NRS 62.080(2)(b), as requiring the juvenile to rebut the presumption by establishing that substance abuse or emotional or behavioral problems had substantially influenced or contributed to [the charged] criminal actions. [19] Thus, under Anthony Lee R. 's interpretation of the rebuttal provision's operation, a juvenile must incriminate himself to rebut the certification presumption, as he must present clear and convincing evidence that due to a substance abuse, emotional, or behavioral problem, he committed the charged criminal actions. The juvenile court's current practice of requiring juveniles to establish a direct nexus between their substance abuse, emotional, or behavioral problems and the charged criminal conduct supports our conclusion that incriminating statements are required to rebut the certification presumption. The court in William's case noted that William's own statements would have to establish that he was intoxicated on the night in question during the alleged incident and that, as the court understood the rebuttal requirements, William could not meet his burden as he denied being present during the incident. Similar statements were made by the district court in Marques' case.