Opinion ID: 1668640
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the circuit court abuse its discretion in deciding to transfer milk to adult court?

Text: SDCL 26-11-4 provides in pertinent part: The circuit court may, in its discretion, in any case of a delinquent child, after transfer hearing, permit such child to be proceeded against in accordance with the laws that may be in force in this state governing the commission of crimes, petty offenses or violation of municipal ordinances. In such cases the petition filed under chapter 26-8 shall be dismissed. The hearing shall be conducted as hereinafter provided. At the transfer hearing, the court shall consider only whether it would be contrary to the best interest of the child or of the public to retain jurisdiction over the child. The following factors may be considered by the court in determining whether a child should be transferred: (1) The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether protection of the community requires waiver; (2) Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner; (3) Whether the alleged offense was against persons or property with greater weight being given to offenses against persons; (4) The prosecutive merit of the complaint. The state shall not be required to establish probable cause to show prosecutive merit; (5) The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one proceeding when the child's associates in the alleged offense are adults; (6) The record and previous history of the juvenile; (7) The prospect for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile, if he is found to have committed the alleged offense, by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the juvenile court.... If the court finds that a child should be held for criminal proceedings ... the court shall enter an order certifying to that effect. The order shall contain findings of fact upon which the court's decision is based. The findings shall not be set aside upon review unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. ... SDCL 26-11-4 (1977) (emphasis added). Thus, the statute sets out that the decision to transfer is within the discretion of the court. See State v. Rios, 499 N.W.2d 906, 907 (S.D.1993) (citing Harris, 494 N.W.2d at 624) ([I]t is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether to transfer juvenile proceedings to adult court.). An abuse of discretion `refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by and clearly against, reason and evidence.' Flying Horse, 455 N.W.2d at 608 (quoting State v. Bartlett, 411 N.W.2d 411, 413 (S.D.1987)). `[T]here must be substantial evidence in the record to support the juvenile court's finding that it would be contrary to the best interests of the child OR of the public to retain jurisdiction of the child.' Rios, 499 N.W.2d at 907 (citing Harris, 494 N.W.2d at 624) (emphasis original) (citations omitted)). As directed by SDCL 26-11-4, the circuit court entered an order, as well as findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the decision to transfer Milk was based. In regard to the seven factors listed in SDCL 26-11-4, we have stated that, `It is not necessary that evidence be presented on all of these factors at each transfer hearing, or that the trial court must make express findings on each factor.' Harris, 494 N.W.2d at 624 (quoting In re D.M.L., 254 N.W.2d 457, 459 (S.D.1977)). Controlling weight is not given to any one factor, and the court is not confined to a consideration of only the listed factors to the exclusion of others. Id. (citing SDCL 26-11-4; D.M.L., 254 N.W.2d at 459-60; L.V.A., 248 N.W.2d at 869-70). We have reviewed the entire record in this case. Even without the testimony that should properly have been excluded as hearsay, the determination of the court to transfer the matter is supported by substantial evidence. Rios, 499 N.W.2d at 907. In reviewing the findings of the court, and giving due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, we cannot say that the findings of the court were clearly erroneous. SDCL 26-11-4. Since the decision was not clearly against reason and evidence, the trial court did not err in ordering the transfer. Flying Horse, 455 N.W.2d at 608. The order of the circuit court transferring the matter to adult court is affirmed. SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur. MILLER, C.J., and HENDERSON, J., concur in part and dissent in part.