Court Opinion

ID: 9736046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:41:45.789194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:03.594046
License: Public Domain

*547Dooley, J.,
concurring. I concur in the Court’s judgment but write separately because I believe that the trial court’s discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for transfer from criminal to juvenile court is not as open-ended as the majority states. I think the lower court’s discretion must be guided by express standards, and I would adopt modified “Kent” factors for this purpose. See Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 566-67 (1966). If this Court is unwilling to adopt ascertainable standards, I agree with defendant that the ad hoc decision-making that prevails denies due process of law.
The trial court considered the Kent factors here and found that, overall, they weighed against defendant. I have no difficulty in holding with the majority that the court properly acted within its discretion in denying the motion for a transfer. My differences with the majority lie in its unwillingness to impose any bounds on the trial court’s discretion. The Court states that the Kent factors are “permitted, but not mandated, by our prior decisions,” leaving no objective basis for deciding whether to affirm or reverse when a lower court refrains from using the Kent standards. As Justice Frankfurter wisely observed: “Discretion without a criterion for its exercise is authorization of arbitrariness.” Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 496 (1953). I see no reason to authorize arbitrary decision-making when we can supply the criteria against which discretion should be exercised. See Klein v. Klein, 150 Vt. 466, 473, 555 A.2d 382, 386 (1988) (“While recognizing discretion [in awarding spousal maintenance], it is our responsibility to set appropriate standards and ensure consistent decision making, at least within limits.”).
In State v. Powers, 136 Vt. 167, 169, 385 A.2d 1067, 1068 (1978), this Court noted that transfers to juvenile court under 33 V.S.A. § 635(b) were discretionary with the trial court, but we cautioned that “more is involved than judicial whim.” Elaborating, we stated: “Adequate findings of fact are required, so that we may determine whether the sound discretion implicitly mandated by the statute was in fact exercised.” Id. These propositions were cited approvingly in State v. Jacobs, 144 Vt. 70, 72, 472 A.2d 1247, 1248 (1984), although, at the same time, we expressly “decline[d] to adopt specific standards, electing instead to review the exercise of discretion by the trial courts *548on a case by case basis.” Id. at 74,472 A.2d at 1250; accord State v. Lafayette, 152 Vt. 108, 110, 564 A.2d 1068, 1069 (1989); State v. Small, 151 Vt. 340, 341, 560 A.2d 955, 955 (1989); State v. Willis, 145 Vt. 459, 465, 494 A.2d 108, 111 (1985).
It is incumbent upon us to articulate standards for distinguishing transfer decisions based on “judicial whim” from those based on “sound discretion.” Without such standards, we — as well as the trial bench, the bar, and the public — are unable to say whether discretion is exercised soundly or whether findings are “adequate,” as required by Powers, for soundness and adequacy are relative judgments that must be tested against standards. Unfortunately, the policy of Powers is, I believe, being undone by Jacobs and its progeny. Today’s decision brings us further away from the principle of Powers.
The Court in Jacobs gave two reasons for declining to adopt standards:
First, in enacting 33 V.S.A. § 635(b), the Legislature did not see fit to promulgate any standards, leaving the decision to the discretion of the trial court. This interpretation is, we think, clear, when § 635(b) is read in the light of § 635a (transfers from the juvenile courts). The latter statute contains elaborate and detailed standards, nine in all. See 33 V.S.A. §§.635a(c)(l), (2), and 635a(d)(l)-(7). In light of the fact that §§ 635 and 635a are not only adjoining statutes, but are in pari materia (both dealing with transfers), and in both cases were last acted on as part of the same enactment at the 1981 Special Session of the General Assembly, see 1981, No. 1 (Sp. Sess.), §§ 4, 5 (§ 635 amended; § 635a added), we think it is clear, that had the Legislature ever intended § 635 to require anything other than a sound discretionary judgment by the trial court, it would have said so by providing standards as it did in the case of its twin statute, § 635a. Under the circumstances it is impossible to attribute the difference to mere inadvertence. Nor is it a legitimate function of this Court to expand a statute by implication, that is, by reading into it something which is not there, unless it is necessary in order to make it effective____
Secondly, although the two “standards” recommended by defendant are certainly worthy of consideration by the juvenile court, they could, if adopted as mandatory, tend to *549limit the scope of the court’s discretionary powers, and nullify or retard consideration of other possible factors. Such a limitation may, in specific cases, work as a detriment to the interests of the juvenile in some instances, and to those of the public in others.
144 Vt. at 74-75, 472 A.2d at 1250 (emphasis in original).
Neither rationale is persuasive. A legislative intent in support of standards may also be inferred from the statutory scheme. The Court concluded from a comparison of §§ 635(b) and 635a that the absence of express standards in the former indicates that the Legislature intended standardless decision-making in § 635(b) cases. I think it is equally plausible to infer from the inclusion of specific factors in § 635a that the Legislature intended such factors to guide all rulings on transfer motions, and that its failure to reference the factors of § 635a(d) in § 635(b) was inadvertent. It is difficult to comprehend why the Legislature should require the juvenile court to evaluate specific factors in considering a motion to transfer a case to criminal court but not require the criminal court to evaluate the same or similar factors in ruling on a motion to transfer a case to juvenile court. The factors are equally relevant in both situations. I would construe the statutes to avoid such an irrational result. See In re A. C., 144 Vt. 37, 42, 470 A.2d 1191, 1194 (1984).
I concur with the proposition in Jacobs that we should not “expand a statute . . . unless it is necessary in order to make it effective,” but that condition is met here. Without reading standards into the statute, it is impossible to avoid arbitrary decision-making and to have meaningful review of transfer decisions. See Feld, Reference of Juvenile Offenders for Adult Prosecution: The Legislative Alternative to Asking Unanswerable Questions, 62 Minn. L. Rev. 515, 520 (1978) (“[BJecause judicial waiver statutes typically give judges broad discretion in making transfer decisions, such statutes invite abuse of discretion and discriminatory application, thus undermining the fairness of the judicial process.”).
The second rationale is also unpersuasive. I would not limit the trial court to consideration of the Kent factors; I would require only that the court consider those factors along with others the court deemed appropriate in the case before it.
*550But even if, as a matter of statutory construction, Jacobs correctly inferred the legislative intent behind the absence of express standards in § 635(b), I believe that ascertainable standards are constitutionally required under Kent y. United States. In Kent, the Supreme Court reversed a sixteen-year-old’s conviction in the district court of housebreaking and robbery because of inadequate procedures used by the juvenile court in waiving jurisdiction pursuant to the District of Columbia Juvenile Court Act. 383 U.S. at 543. Among other defects, the juvenile court made no findings and did not cite any reason for the waiver, id. at 546, although at the time a 1959 “policy memorandum” of the D.C. juvenile court was in force which “set forth the criteria to govern disposition of waiver requests.” Id. at 546 n.4. The memorandum, printed in an appendix to the Supreme Court’s opinion, noted that the governing statute did not itself specify standards. Id. at 566. Because of the importance to all parties of “knowledge of the Judge’s criteria,” however, the memorandum elaborated as follows:
The determinative factors which will be considered by the Judge in deciding whether the Juvenile Court’s jurisdiction over such offenses will be waived are the following:
1. The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the 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 against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons especially if personal injury resulted.
4. The prosecutive merit of the complaint, i. e., whether there is evidence upon which a Grand Jury may be expected to return an indictment....
5. The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile’s associates in the alleged offense are adults ....
6. The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living.
7. The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with the Youth Aid Division, *551other law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts [in] other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation to this Court, or prior commitments to juvenile institutions.
8. The prospects 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.
Id. at 566-67. The memorandum continued:
Although not all such factors will be involved in an individual case, the Judge will consider the relevant factors in a specific case before reaching a conclusion to waive juvenile jurisdiction and transfer the case . . . for trial under the adult procedures. . . .
Id. at 567-68.
The Supreme Court did not say these particular criteria' are constitutionally required; its holding was more general — that the petitioner was entitled to “procedural regularity,” a hearing, counsel, access to records, and a statement of reasons for the decision. Id. at 553-54, 557, 561. Due process requires ceremony: “[T]here is no place in our system of law for reaching a result of such tremendous consequences without ceremony— without hearing, without effective assistance of counsel, without a statement of reasons.” Id. at 554; see Feld, supra, at 524 (constitutional basis for Kent’s requirement of due process in waiver decisions); Schornhorst, The Waiver of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction: Kent Revisited, 43 Ind. L.J. 583, 585-88 (1968) (same). The Court emphasized the conditions for “meaningful review”:
Meaningful review requires that the reviewing court should review. It should not be remitted to assumptions. It must have before it a statement of the reasons motivating the waiver including, of course, a statement of the relevant facts. It may not “assume” that there are adequate reasons, nor may it merely assume that “full investigation” has been made. Accordingly, we hold that it is incumbent upon the Juvenile Court to accompany its waiver order with a statement of the reasons or considerations therefor.
383 U.S. at 561.
*552Kent concerned a transfer to criminal court where original jurisdiction lay with the juvenile court. The present case, of course, is the reverse: by statute, original jurisdiction over defendant is vested in the district court, which may transfer the proceeding to the juvenile court. 33 V.S.A. §§ 632(a)(1)(B), 635(b). But the underlying due process issues are the same. See King v. State, 36 Md. App. 124, 127, 373 A.2d 292, 295 (1977) (“The legal principles which govern the decision required to be made by the trial court in a ‘reverse waiver’ case are the same as those which determine the trial court’s action on a request for waiver from the juvenile court to the circuit court level.”). In both events, the transfer decision is what the Supreme Court in Kent labeled a “critically important” action, 383 U.S. at 556, that must be accompanied by procedural due process. See J. M. R. v. Moore, 610 P.2d 811, 814 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980) (both certification to criminal court and “reverse certification” involve substantive rights of juvenile).
Other states with statutes vesting jurisdiction over certain juveniles in criminal court, but permitting discretionary transfer to juvenile court, require that a ruling on a transfer motion address certain criteria. Thus, a Pennsylvania court has held:
Under the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6322(a), the court has the discretion to transfer appropriate cases to juvenile court. It is, however, the burden of the petitioner ... to prove that he does not belong in criminal court. This is accomplished by demonstrating a need for and an amenability to programs for rehabilitation, supervision, and care provided by the juvenile court system.
Commonwealth v. Waters, 334 Pa. Super. 513, 519,483 A.2d 855, 858 (1984) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1137 (1985); accord Commonwealth v. Sourbeer, 492 Pa. 17, 25, 422 A.2d 116, 119 (1980). This requirement must be met even though the statute itself does not specify criteria.
Contrary to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6355, Transfer to criminal proceedings, which details at great length and precision the requirements which must be met by the Commonwealth in proving a need for transfer from the juvenile court to the criminal court, the legislature was silent as to the test for transfer from criminal court to the juvenile court.
*553Commonwealth v. Zoller, 345 Pa. Super. 350, 355, 498 A.2d 436, 439 (1985).
The Maryland statute providing for discretionary transfers from criminal to juvenile court in limited cases also fails to specify factors, but the state’s appellate court has mandated that trial courts “consider the following factors: age of the child; mental and physical condition of the child; child’s amenability to treatment in any institution, facility or program available to delinquents; nature of the offense and the child’s alleged participation in it; and the public safety.” King v. State, 36 Md. App. at 128, 373 A.2d at 295.
Numerous other states have enacted statutes spelling out criteria that must be addressed by a criminal court contemplating transfer of a proceeding to a juvenile court. The New York statute sets forth criteria largely tracking the Kent factors for certain offenses. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 210.43(2) (McKinney 1982); see also Evans v. State, 287 Ark. 136, 141-42, 697 S.W.2d 879, 882-83 (1985); State v. Anderson, 385 A.2d 738, 739 n.2 (Del. Super. Ct. 1978); State v. Alexander, 215 Neb. 478, 486, 339 N.W.2d 297, 301 (1983); K.C.W. v. State, 736 P.2d 525, 526 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
Transfer decisions are among the most visible and controversial decisions made in the criminal justice system. The pressures on the trial court are enormous. At the same time, I can think of no decision where the actuality and appearance of fair adjudication is more critical. It is one of the last places where we should let arbitrariness creep into decision-making. It is also one of the last places where we should try to conduct “meaningful review” through 20/20 hindsight. We can accomplish these objectives only if we adopt standards to guide the trial court’s adjudication of transfer motions. In hearings under 33 V.S.A. § 635(b), I would require consideration of the factors set forth in 33 V.S.A. § 635a(c) and (d) (transfer from juvenile to criminal court), which are, essentially, a modified version of the factors in the Kent appendix.