Opinion ID: 1434960
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the adult certification order is void for failure to state reasons or considerations.

Text: 1. We hold NRS 62.080 to be constitutional. In reviewing a similar statute in the District of Columbia, the United States Supreme Court in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), upheld it against an attack that it failed to provide adequate standards and said: The issue is the standards to be applied upon such review. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the statute contemplates that the Juvenile Court should have considerable latitude within which to determine whether it should retain jurisdiction over a child or  subject to the statutory delimitation  should waive jurisdiction. But this latitude is not complete. At the outset, it assumes procedural regularity sufficient in the particular circumstances to satisfy the basic requirements of due process and fairness, as well as compliance with the statutory requirement of a `full investigation.' Green v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 348, 308 F.2d 303 (1962). The statute gives the Juvenile Court a substantial degree of discretion as to the factual considerations to be evaluated, the weight to be given them and the conclusions to be reached. It does not confer upon the Juvenile Court a license for arbitrary procedure. That court paraphrased guide lines which had been previously drawn up as consistent with the basic aims and purposes of the Juvenile Court Act. They are set out in the margin as a guide to the criteria and principles to be followed in waiving jurisdiction of the juvenile court or in certifying a juvenile to stand trial as an adult. [2] We feel that the necessary standards are set out in the general purpose clause of the Juvenile Court Act, NRS 62.290, which reads as follows: This chapter shall be liberally construed to the end that each child coming within the jurisdiction of the court shall receive such care, guidance and control, preferably in his own home, as will be conducive to the child's welfare and the best interest of the state, and that when such child is removed from the control of his parents, the court shall secure for him care as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given him by them. An attack, similar to the one made here by appellant, was rejected by the Supreme Court of New Mexico. In State v. Doyal, 59 N.M. 454, 286 P.2d 306 (1955), that court rejected an argument that the legislation was required to spell out with particularity the factors best calculated to promote the interest of a juvenile. The court stated: It is a weighing of such considerations that might influence the judge to place the case for trial in the one or the other court. The considerations that might so move a judge are so multifarious, however, that to test the validity of legislation by an omission to list them would be almost equivalent to attempting to name all the advantages of being upright and good. Accord Briggs v. United States, 96 U.S. App.D.C. 392, 226 F.2d 350 (1955). See also State ex rel. Londerholm v. Owens, 197 Kan. 212, 416 P.2d 259 (1966); People v. Shipp, 59 Cal.2d 845, 31 Cal. Rptr. 457, 382 P.2d 577 (1963). 2. We see no merit to appellant's contention that the formal certification order is void because it fails to state reasons for its issuance in violation of our decision in Kline v. State, 86 Nev. 59, 464 P.2d 460 (1970), and Kent v. United States, supra. In his oral decision preceding issuance of the formal adult certification order, Judge Mendoza gave his reasons or considerations therefor. Summarized, they are: 1. You are a menace. 2. You have committed robbery before. 3. You were placed on probation because of exerting force and violence upon another. 4. You have committed another crime of violence. 5. You were aware of the circumstances. 6. You have been aware of them in the past. 7. You did them of your own volition. 8. They were wilful acts. 9. You are 17 1/2 years old. 10. You are aware of what you did. 11. You are a man and you will stand trial as one. Those reasons or considerations are in the record and permit meaningful review by this court. Kline v. State, supra. The order was made after full investigation, is supported by substantial relevant evidence, and received careful consideration of the Juvenile Court. Kent v. United States, supra. 3. We decline to review the question of the admissibility of the probation department's report as being hearsay. Objection to it was not presented to the lower court and may not be cited as error for the first time on appeal. Sherwood v. Sissa, 5 Nev. 349 (1870); Barra v. Dumais, 76 Nev. 409, 356 P.2d 124 (1960). Affirmed. ZENOFF, BATJER, MOWBRAY and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.