Opinion ID: 6496174
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juvenile Court Waiver Proceedings

Text: ¶27 There are two steps in the process to waive juvenile court jurisdiction. First, [t]he court shall determine whether the matter has prosecutive merit. Wis. Stat. § 938.18(4)(a). We have equated a determination of prosecutive merit in this context with a determination of probable cause at a preliminary 16 No. 2021AP419 examination. P.A.K. v. State, 119 Wis. 2d 871, 884, 350 N.W.2d 677 (1984) (citing T.R.B. v. State, 109 Wis. 2d 179, 192, 325 N.W.2d 329 (1982)). ¶28 Once prosecutive merit has been found, the juvenile court advances to the second stage of the proceedings. At the second stage, the juvenile court must determine whether to waive jurisdiction. [T]he court shall base its decision whether to waive jurisdiction on the following criteria: (a) The personality of the juvenile, including whether the juvenile has a mental illness or developmental disability, the juvenile's physical and mental maturity, and the juvenile's pattern of living, prior treatment history, and apparent potential for responding to future treatment. (am) The prior record of the juvenile, including whether the court has previously waived its jurisdiction over the juvenile, whether the juvenile has been previously convicted following a waiver of the court's jurisdiction or has been previously found delinquent, whether such conviction or delinquency involved the infliction of serious bodily injury, the juvenile's motives and attitudes, and the juvenile's prior offenses. (b) The type and seriousness of the offense, including whether it was against persons or property and the extent to which it was committed in a violent, aggressive, premeditated or willful manner. (c) The adequacy and suitability of facilities, services and procedures available for treatment of the juvenile and protection of the public within the juvenile justice system, and, where applicable, the mental health system and the suitability of the juvenile for placement in the serious juvenile offender program under s. 938.538 or the adult intensive sanctions program under s. 301.048. 17 No. 2021AP419 (d) The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court if the juvenile was allegedly associated in the offense with persons who will be charged with a crime in the court of criminal jurisdiction. Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5). ¶29 Under Wis. Stat. § 938.18(6), the juvenile court shall state its finding with respect to the criteria on the record. . . . [I]f the court determines on the record that there is clear and convincing evidence that it is contrary to the best interests of the juvenile or of the public to hear the case, the court shall enter an order waiving jurisdiction and referring the matter to the district attorney for appropriate proceedings in the court of criminal jurisdiction. § 938.18(6). ¶30 At juvenile waiver hearings, common law and statutory rules of evidence are not binding. Wis. Stat. § 938.299(4)(b). Hearsay evidence may be admitted if it has demonstrable circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. Id. ¶31 As we explained in State v. Kleser in the analogous reverse-waiver context, the time for the juvenile to contest the factual basis for the offenses charged is when the court makes its probable cause determination.9 2010 WI 88, ¶¶56-66, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144. Once prosecutive merit in a juvenile waiver case has been found, the juvenile cannot then contest or contradict the findings that the offenses charged 9 Reverse waiver is a procedure by which juveniles subject to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the adult criminal court may obtain a transfer [of] jurisdiction [from adult court] to juvenile court. State v. Kleser, 2010 WI 88, ¶¶1, 3, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144 (citing Wis. Stat. §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) and (2) (2005-06)). 18 No. 2021AP419 were committed at the second stage of the proceedings. Id., ¶66 (We see no basis for contradicting that finding after the preliminary examination except at trial.). A waiver hearing is not an opportunity to conduct a minitrial on the merits of the case. Id., ¶69. However, a juvenile has latitude to present supplementary evidence in order to allow the court to effectively analyze the statutory criteria under Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5), recognizing that violations of the law [have] already been established. Id., ¶84. B. The State's Petition To Waive X.S. Into Adult Court. ¶32 The circuit court's decision to deny the State's waiver petition was not reasonably supported by the facts and record. Tyler T., 341 Wis. 2d 1, ¶24 (explaining that [a] juvenile court erroneously exercises its discretion . . . if it renders a decision not reasonably supported by the facts of record). We defer to a circuit court's exercise of discretion. However, in this case, reversal of the circuit court's decision is warranted. ¶33 Under J.A.L., we first look to the record to see whether that discretion was in fact exercised. 162 Wis. 2d at 961. The exercise of discretion incorporates a process of reasoning and proper explanation. State v. Salas Gayton, 2016 WI 58, ¶19, 370 Wis. 2d 264, 882 N.W.2d 459 (An exercise of discretion contemplates a process of reasoning. This process must depend on facts that are of record or that are reasonably derived by inference from the record and a conclusion based on a 19 No. 2021AP419 logical rationale founded upon proper legal standards. (quotations and citations omitted)); McCleary v. State, 49 Wis. 2d at 277, 282 (holding that a circuit court that did not provide adequate reasoning or explanation for a discretionary decision fail[ed] to exercise discretion, and explaining that [d]iscretion is not synonymous with decision-making); State v. Hall, 2002 WI App 108, ¶¶16-17, 255 Wis. 2d 662, 648 N.W.2d 41 (reasoning that a discretionary decision that was supported by minimal and inadequate explanation by a circuit court reflect[ed] decision making but not a process of reasoning based on a logical rationale, as is required for a proper exercise of discretion (citations and quotations omitted)). The circuit court here concluded that waiver into adult court was not justified and provided a statement on the record in support of that conclusion. However, the circuit court's findings were unclear, and reading the circuit court's transcript as a whole, it is difficult to infer how the circuit court applied the facts of this case to the statutory criteria provided under Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5).10 Nonetheless, we will assume, without deciding, that the circuit court provided sufficient reasoning and explanation to constitute an exercise of discretion. The circuit court in this case discussed much of the 10 record at the waiver hearing and cited the statutory criteria. In addition, the circuit court repeatedly stated in general terms that it had heard evidence from different perspectives. However, it is not clear from the circuit court transcript how the circuit court interpreted and applied the facts in this case to the statutory factors provided under Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5). 20 No. 2021AP419 ¶34 Under J.A.L., [a]ssuming discretion was exercised, we next look for reasons to sustain the trial court's discretionary decision. 162 Wis. 2d at 961. There are several facts that may support the circuit court's decision to deny waiver into adult court in this case. ¶35 First, at the Mayfair Mall, X.S. shot three individuals in the other group with whom X.S. was engaged in a confrontation, as well as four bystanders. However, in the process, he also shot his own friend, E.G. Second, after X.S. engaged in the shootings, he contacted his family to assist him in his escape and had an Uber called to drive him away from the mall. X.S. and his family formulated a plan to flee the state after the shootings took place, and X.S. was apprehended by police a few days after the shootings. From the available record, X.S. does not appear to have created a well-developed escape plan prior to the mall shootings. Third, X.S. was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of being shot in April 2020, and the State did not challenge the validity of that diagnosis. X.S. could in the future receive treatment for any remaining mental health issues he has. Proper treatment could improve the possibility that X.S. will comply with court-ordered conditions and decline opportunities to engage in future criminal behavior. Fourth, many of the events that lay at the heart of the record in this case occurred when both X.S. and E.G. were acting together. X.S. was shot in April 2020 when he was at a drug deal with E.G.; X.S. was arrested in July 2020 for possessing with intent to distribute marijuana and obstructing an officer 21 No. 2021AP419 while he was with E.G.; and X.S. participated in the shooting at the Mayfair Mall after E.G. and X.S. confronted the other group of four individuals. It is possible X.S.'s past behavior could be attributed in part to his associations with E.G. Fifth, between when X.S. entered the juvenile system in July 2020 and when he committed the shootings at issue in November 2020, he was in the juvenile system for around four months. Although X.S.'s record in the juvenile system was marked by noncompliance with court-ordered conditions, there was not a long history by which a court could judge the adequacy of the juvenile system for X.S. ¶36 Under J.A.L. we will reverse a juvenile court's waiver determination if and only if the record does not reflect a reasonable basis for the determination or a statement of the relevant facts or reasons motivating the determination is not carefully delineated in the record. 162 Wis. 2d at 961. We conclude that the record does not reflect a reasonable basis for denying the State's waiver petition. ¶37 The circuit court determined there was prosecutive merit, which X.S. did not contest. Therefore, it is taken as established for purposes of analyzing the State's waiver petition that X.S. on November 20, 2020, engaged in eight acts of first-degree reckless injury with use of a dangerous weapon, in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 940.23(1)(a) and 939.63(1)(b). See Kleser, 328 Wis. 2d 42, ¶84. For purposes of a waiver analysis, it is taken as established that X.S. on eight different occasions recklessly cause[d] great bodily harm to 22 No. 2021AP419 another human being under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life. § 940.23(1)(a). In addition, it is taken as established that X.S. illegally possessed a dangerous weapon on that date, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.60(2)(a).11
¶38 The offenses X.S. is charged with demonstrate that he engaged in reckless conduct while showing an utter disregard for human life. X.S. was willing and able to carry an illegal weapon, use it, and thereby risk the lives of eight people. ¶39 Supplemental facts in the record, used to put the offense[s] in context, only highlight the dangerousness and reckless nature of X.S.'s actions. Kleser, 328 Wis. 2d 42, ¶84. According to witness testimony, X.S. and E.G. entered a public mall on the Friday afternoon before Thanksgiving. E.G., with X.S., then confronted the group of four other individuals, consisting of three males and one female, who were shopping. E.G. assaulted one of the members of the other group. X.S. drew a concealed handgun and opened fire on the group. X.S. unloaded around ten rounds, hitting E.G. and at least two of the members of the other group. After firing, X.S. then paused, saw one of the members of the other group attempting to flee, turned his attention to this other individual, and he opened fire at that 11As we emphasized previously, at trial the State must prove these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt to establish X.S.'s guilt. See supra, ¶4. When reviewing the juvenile waiver decision at issue in this case, we do not establish X.S.'s guilt, nor do we attach any form of criminal liability to