Opinion ID: 2054126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appropriateness of Prosecution as an Adult

Text: During the second portion of the bifurcated bind-over hearing, several witnesses testified for the State regarding Sanborn's history of placement at the Maine Youth Center, repeated escapes from the center, Sanborn's mental health generally, and his prospects for rehabilitation. In response, Sanborn offered testimony as to his participation (1) in substance abuse meetings, (2) in chapel services at the Maine Youth Center, and (3) in a Colorado program designed to treat youths with behavioral problems like Sanborn's. The Juvenile Court found that it was appropriate to prosecute Sanborn as if he were an adult. Sanborn argues that the Juvenile Court abused its discretion. First, he argues that the Maine Juvenile Code must be applied and interpreted in light of its stated purpose of treatment and rehabilitation. 15 M.R.S.A. § 3002(1) (1980 & Supp.1993). Second, he argues that the evidence in the record is insufficient to support the Juvenile Court's determination that Sanborn was not receptive or amenable to treatment. In so arguing, he focuses on the three statutory factors that 15 M.R.S.A. § 3101(4)(D) requires a juvenile court to consider. In relation to the first factor  seriousness of the crime  Sanborn does not dispute that the offense charged is serious. He argues, however, that the seriousness of the offense, standing alone, is insufficient to justify the bind-over. In relation to the second factor  the characteristics of the juvenile  Sanborn argues that the evidence does not support the court's finding that bind-over was appropriate. Regarding the third factor  the dispositional alternatives  Sanborn avers that a Colorado facility could offer appropriate treatment. Sanborn argues that the court misapplied the gravity of the offense portion of 15 M.R.S.A. § 3101(4)(D)(3) [3] when it expressed concern regarding the Colorado program's inability to confine Sanborn beyond his 21st birthday. He argues that the `diminish the gravity of the offense' standard must be placed in the context of the purpose of the Juvenile Code, which is to focus on the juvenile's amenability to treatment, rather than his past bad acts. 15 M.R.S.A. § 3101(4) does not, as Sanborn suggests, state that a juvenile who is amenable to treatment cannot be bound over to be tried as an adult. Instead, the statute provides a list of factors that must be considered by the Juvenile Court when deciding whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, it is appropriate to prosecute a juvenile as an adult. Contrary to Sanborn's interpretation, the statute does not dictate the weight to be given to the specific factors, nor does it provide that each factor must be affirmatively shown before it is appropriate to prosecute a juvenile as an adult. In an opinion that was both detailed and comprehensive, the Juvenile Court considered each of the required factors and accordingly made its finding. In its carefully written well-reasoned opinion, the Juvenile Court considered, at length, the seriousness of the crime and the characteristics of Sanborn (including his record and previous history, Sanborn's emotional attitude and pattern of living, and the dispositional alternatives). After such consideration, the Juvenile Court concluded: In view of this emotional attitude and pattern of living, in light of the lack of dispositional alternatives available to the Juvenile Court that would adequately address both the demonstrated conduct of this individual and the gravity of the offense, and in view of the undisputed seriousness of the offense at issue here, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that it is appropriate to prosecute Anthony Sanborn, Jr., as if he were an adult. See 15 M.R.S.A. § 3101(4)(E)(2). We find no error nor abuse of discretion in the Juvenile Court's conclusion that it was appropriate to prosecute Sanborn as if he were an adult.