Court Opinion

ID: 9849030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:33:18.318232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:57.644165
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(dissenting). The principal issue in this case is the' propriety of a probate court waiver of jurisdiction over a sixteen-year-old defendant which allowed him to be tried as an adult and, upon conviction, sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment for first-degree murder. Resolution of this issue involves consideration of the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented at the *399waiver-disposition hearing and the juvenile court’s findings of fact in support of that decision.
We conclude that the appropriate standard for review is that set forth in People v Schumacher, 75 Mich App 505; 256 NW2d 39 (1977), and that the record sufficiently supports the decision of the probate court. Therefore we dissent from the order discharging the defendant. We would affirm the Court of Appeals and the order of waiver of the probate court.
I
Facts and Procedural History
Defendant, Jeffrey Dunbar, was arrested on or about July 23, 1978, at the age of sixteen and charged in the Wayne County Probate Court, Juvenile Division, with first-degree felony murder and armed robbery, both stemming from the same incident. The defendant was one of several individuals who participated in an attack on Dennis Rhodes in order to steal the ten-speed bicycle he was riding. The victim was beaten and stabbed, and died as a result of multiple wounds sustained in an effort to prevent defendant and the others from taking the bicycle.
The Wayne County Prosecutor filed a motion pursuant to MCL 712A.4; MSA 27.3178(598.4), in the Juvenile Division of the Wayne County Probate Court, requesting waiver of jurisdiction to the Recorder’s Court for the City of Detroit.
On August 23, 1978, probable cause was established by stipulation of the parties for the purposes of phase one of the waiver hearing, and the court commenced a complete investigation of defendant’s psychosocial background in order to provide a basis for determining "whether the inter*400ests of the child and the public would best be served by granting a waiver of jurisdiction” for the purposes of the second phase of the waiver decision.1
On September 27 and 28 of 1978, the juvenile court judge heard the testimony of a number of expert witnesses who had assisted in conducting the investigation of the defendant, many of whom were familiar with the resources available in both the adult and juvenile correctional system. These included a psychologist who had tested and interviewed the defendant, a psychiatric social worker, a probation officer who had worked on the case, and an administrator of the Department of Social Services.
The defendant presented the testimony of a teacher he had known in elementary school, a neighbor, a teacher who had known the defendant since his confinement two months earlier, and his family minister. After hearing the testimony of the witnesses and considering all of the evidence, the probate judge made the following specific findings on the record on each of the five criteria listed in the juvenile court rule and statute:2_
*401The Court has considered the five criteria as established by the Michigan Supreme Court court rules. As to the first criteria, the Court finds from the testimony that the respondent has no adjudicative Juvenile Court record, and from the testimony that he’s physically mature, from the testimony that his pattern of living is acceptable under the particular situation where he lives. And that situation is found to be from the testimony, a high crime area and one in which several gangs inhabit. The Court finds that the absence of the respondent from school for one year may be because of the beating administered to him because of his brother but the Court is not convinced that the staying out of school is the best possible decision and resolution to that possible reason for staying out of school.
The Court in criteria one has considered the *402testimony of the defense’s presented witnesses. Mr. Andrews, the fifth and sixth grade school teacher who testified that while in the fifth or sixth grade that the respondent did well in school and presented no particular problem, if any, to the school people. The same pattern has been existent as is testified by Mr. Martin in the Youth Home since his stay there on July 26, 1978, and that he has been no problem there. And the testimony of the Reverend Mitchell indicates that the family itself is a good family.
The seriousness of the offense is the next criteria; the stipulation with the court with the allegations in the petition. The Court does find without equivocation that the taking of a human life is a serious crime. That that human being has every right to live as much as Jeffrey has a right to live, and he no longer can exercise that right. So without belaboring that point, the Court finds from the petition that the offense is the most serious in our penal code; that it is not a less serious offense and that Jeffrey does not have a repetitive pattern of offenses that would lead this Court to determine that he is beyond rehabilitation under the regular statutory juvenile procedures.
Now, the Court has considered the forth [sic] criteria, the relative suitability of the programs and facilities available to the juvenile and criminal courts for the child. From the testimony, the Court determines that part of the needs of the respondent here are educational and vocational. That he’s reading at a 4.5 grade level and the Court determines that this has to be brought up in order to function at least to perhaps a 6.0 grade level or a 6.5 grade level, and hopefully right up to an eigth [sic] grade level. That in order to function in any other area there are certain basic skills which the reading level is an indicia; that these skills are lacking and that in order to gain these skills that really must be brought up. He has done well earlier in school in math as was testimony in the record which demonstrates to this Court that there’s a potential for him to improve himself to become a functioning citizen.
*403He has expressed a desire as has been testified here to become a mechanic. The educational facilities at the adult and at the juvenile levels has [sic] been weighed. At the juvenile level there is a reading program there and there’s a preliminary vocational program there. The familiarity as was testified to the average length of stay is eight months. That in the adult level there’s a full vocational program and there’s an additional program that runs at least through the high school. And that the length of stay, of course, would be determined by sentence in the adult court if he were convicted and his ultimate placement would in part be determined by the length of time that he would spend there.
The Court has considered the criteria where it is found to be in the best interests of the public welfare and for the protection of the public security, generally, that said juvenile be required to stand trial as an adult offender. The Court in its investigation of the interests of the child and the public has determined that Jeffrey needs an educational backing that is lacking in the juvenile system. It is going to take more time than the juvenile system can afford him to bring his reading skills up and other skills. And he certainly hasn’t helped himself educationally by remaining out of school for the past one year and this unfortunately works to Jeffrey’s detriment. In his best interests, he has to bring that educational level up and that in the best interests of the public that he has to bring that level up.
As to vocational matters, I think that the Court feels that the adult system, as the testimony shows, is far superior to the juvenile facilities and that he would better be able to function in a free society after gaining educational and vocational training. And that the interests of the public welfare and the protection of the public security indicate that Jeffrey is not of such a position at this time to function adequately in society. That he needs something that must be given to him in a more structured setting than he receives at home.
*404Therefore, it is the Court’s decision that the Motion requesting Waiver of Jurisdiction on Jeffrey Dunbar to the adult court be granted and that Jeffrey will stand trial in the Detroit Recorder’s Court and he will be conveyed on the other procedures to the Wayne County Jail awaiting his arraignment in Recorder’s Court.
The probate judge’s decision to waive jurisdiction was timely appealed to the Wayne Circuit Court pursuant to MCL 712A.22; MSA 27.3178(598.22) (repealed by 1978 PA 543, § 1, effective July 1, 1979, and replaced by MCL 600.863; MSA 27A.863), which affirmed the waiver decision on July 20, 1979, several months after the defendant’s trial and sentencing.3
On July 29, 1981, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s waiver and his conviction as an adult. This Court granted leave to appeal on March 29, 1984. 419 Mich 855 (1984).
II
While this Court has never spoken to the question of the standards for appellate review in juvenile waiver cases, the subject has arisen in the Court of Appeals. The leading decision from that Court is that of Justice Riley in People v Schumacher, 75 Mich App 505; 256 NW2d 39 (1977). In that decision, the Court of Appeals observed the tension that may exist between the goals of caring for the child and protection of society.
Justice Riley recognized the general philosophy expressed in the court rule applicable to waiver proceedings which provides that
*405[although the procedures are not criminal, the court and its officers shall proceed in a manner so as to safeguard procedural rights and the proper interests of the child . . . and the public. [MCR 5.901(B).]
She also pointed out the requirement that the rules be construed in keeping with the philosophy expressed in the preamble of the Juvenile Code, MCL 712A.1; MSA 27.3178(598.1), that each child coming within the jurisdiction of the court receive the care, guidance, and control conducive to the child’s welfare and the best interests of the state. MCR 5.901(B)(1).
Thus, there are two considerations involved in reviewing a juvenile waiver — the interests of the child, and the interests of society. While these interests are often identical, conflicts occasionally arise. It is then that the administration of justice must grapple with the problem of determining— under the concrete facts of a given casé — whether the needs of the child or the needs of society as a whole must predominate.
In light of these sometimes conflicting considerations, the Court of Appeals held in Schumacher that an order waiving jurisdiction should be affirmed whenever the probate judge finds, on the basis of substantial evidence and thorough investigation, that either the juvenile is not amenable to treatment or, despite a potential for treatment, the nature of his difficulty is likely to render the juvenile dangerous to the public if released at age nineteen, when juvenile jurisdiction ceases, or disruptive of the rehabilitation of other juveniles prior to his release. Schumacher, supra, p 512. The Court of Appeals chose to emphasize, moreover, that the seriousness of the offense "may not alone be used to determine the likelihood that a poten*406tially amenable juvenile will endanger the public or other children . . . Id. Noting that both the Legislature and this Court have directed that all five waiver criteria be considered, the Court of Appeals concluded that "no reason appears why the 'seriousness of the offense’ should gain preeminence over other factors to be assessed.”
We approve the soundness of the Schumacher approach and adopt the standard set forth therein for review of a probate court order waiving jurisdiction. A waiver does not require the prosecutor to show that the child is not amenable to treatment as a juvenile. The question of waiver is more complex, requiring a delicate balance "between the often competing interests of the juvenile and society,” id., to ensure that the court does not treat children as criminals — or criminals as children. A minor’s "amenab[ility] to treatment” is a significant factor, but not the paramount one; and as "the seriousness of the offense” alone may not "gain preeminence over the other factors to be assessed,” id., neither may a juvenile’s amenability to treatment. As Justice Riley noted in Schumacher, supra at 512: "The Legislature and the Supreme Court have indicated by statute and rule, respectively, that all of the waiver criteria shall be considered . . . .”4
Therefore, we agree with the Court of Appeals conclusion in this case that the probate judge considered all of the relevant criteria, and that the "findings were based upon substantial evidence including relative suitability of programs and facil*407ities, defendant’s personality and needs, as well as the seriousness of the offense.” Review of the probate court’s findings of fact and the evidence presented in this case mandates the conclusion that the court’s decision waiving jurisdiction was correct.
The facts of this case show that defendant was a principal actor in a brutal robbery-murder. The victim attempted to protect himself and his property by fighting off his three assailants with his bicycle chain. Defendant and his companions renewed the attack after their victim had collapsed from his wounds. Defendant himself seized the bicycle chain and beat the dying young man while one of his accomplices attacked the victim with a tire jack and the other used a knife to pry the deceased’s hand away from the bicycle. Thus, the record graphically demonstrates not only the gravity of the offense, but the extent of the danger defendant presents to the public.
There was also testimony given by expert witnesses that defendant was physically and mentally mature and that his crime was not the result of immaturity. Other testimony suggested that defendant possessed a manipulative personality, rendering it unlikely that he would find treatment as a juvenile to be an effective rehabilitant. The juvenile court psychologist testified that defendant’s feelings about the young man he had helped kill were "superficial” — his "negative attitudes about murder” consisted of the feeling that it was "too bad this guy had to be killed,” — and that "his primary concern at the time of [the] evaluation [was] what’s going to happen to him.” These are not the attitudes of a misguided child. The testimony of the expert witness who recommended waiver provided a firm basis for the court’s conclusion that the juvenile system simply had nothing *408to offer someone with defendant’s background and problems.
There is no question but that defendant stood charged with a serious offense; the court also found that "the interests of the public welfare and the protection of public security indicate that [defendant] is not of such a position at this time to function adequately in society.” Thus, the court found against defendant on the two criteria related to public safety — MCL 712A.4(4)(b), (e); MSA 27.3178(598.4)(4)(b), (e). The record amply supports such a conclusion, and, even standing alone, such findings suffice to mandate affirming the order of waiver. People v Schumacher, supra; In re Evans, 99 Mich App 466; 297 NW2d .873 (1980). As to the "relative suitability of programs and facilities available to the juvenile and criminal courts for the child,” MCL 712A.4(4)(d); MSA 27.3178(598.4)(4)(d), the court concluded that
[t]he Court in its investigation of the interests of the child and the public has determined the [defendant] needs an educational backing that is lacking in the juvenile system. It is going to take more time than the juvenile system can afford him to bring his reading skills up and other skills. And he certainly hasn’t helped himself educationally by remaining out of school for the past one year
As to vocational matters, I think that the Court feels that the adult system, as the testimony shows, is far superior to the juvenile facilities and that he would better be able to function in a free society after gaining educational and vocational training.
Given these findings, we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the majority. Nor can we agree that the probate court erred in taking into account the relatively short rehabilitation period available *409within the juvenile system, In re PH v Alaska, 504 P2d 837 (Alas, 1972).
The majority purports to adopt a standard for appellate review of a waiver of a juvenile which requires affirmance whenever the probate judge has found on the basis of substantial evidence that waiver is appropriate. This standard is consistent with the statutory directive that appellate review may not be de novo, MCL 701.45a(2); MSA 27.3178(45.1)(2), now MCL 600.866(1); MSA 27A.866(1). The Court has in fact, however, reviewed the case de novo, substituted its judgment for that of the probate court and has invalidated a waiver decision which the majority admits is supported by the record. The result is discharge of an individual whom the probate judge properly waived and whom twelve citizens found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first-degree murder.
The majority has not articulated a rule of law which requires this result. Nor has any standard of appellate review been advanced to justify the clear usurpation of the authority of the probate court. Albeit in a different context, the United States Supreme Court has recently reminded appellate courts that their function is not to decide cases de novo.
If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. [Anderson v Bessemer City, 470 US 564; 105 S Ct 1504; 84 L Ed 2d 518, 528 (1985). See also Wainwright v Witt, 469 US 412; 105 S Ct 844; 83 L Ed 2d 841 (1985).]
Apart from any statutory limitation on appellate *410review, Judge Patrick Higgenbotham, concurring specially in O’Bryan v Estelle, 714 F2d 365, 392 (CA 5, 1983), has explicated the institutional need for deference to trial court findings as follows:
That an appellate court not simply ignore that the case has been earlier decided expresses in part a recognition that the trial court was more than an entrance gate. When an appellate court starts afresh, a trial court’s function is reduced to that of collecting data and providing an opportunity for an extrajudicial resolution of the dispute. Even this function would experience a reduction in value as expectation of a judicial decision of consequence shifts wholly away from the trial court. The pyramidal shape of our present court structure rests on the institutional integrity of the trial court as a distinct part of the justice system. As such review is extended upward, only the last "court” in the chain retains full institutional integrity. More is afoot here than nostalgic or romantic reference for trial courts. Finality and all values bound up in that precept are implicated.
The fact that the defendant "had promise” in the retrospective view of the majority cannot justify the substitution of this Court’s judgment for the decision of the probate court. Presumably, after today’s decision, the institutional integrity of a waiver decision will be upheld only if the probate judge is able to accurately predict that the adult system will not deal with a waived defendant in a manner offensive to a majority of this Court.5 We would affirm.
Ryan and Riley, JJ., concurred with Boyle, J.

 A hearing to determine whether the juvenile division should waive jurisdiction consists of two phases that are outlined in MCR 5.911(A)(1).
"Phase 1: Showing of Probable Cause. The court shall first determine if a crime has been committed, which, if committed by an adult, would be a felony, and if there is probable cause to believe that the child committed the crime. The determination must be based on legally admissible evidence.
"Phase 2: Criteria for Waiver. On a showing of probable cause, the court shall conduct a full investigation to determine whether the interests of the child and the public would best be served by granting a waiver of jurisdiction to a court of criminal jurisdiction.”
As the notes to the Michigan Court Rules of 1985 indicate, MCR 5.911 which took effect on March 1, 1985, is substantially the same as JCR 1969, 11.1, the rule in effect at all times pertinent to this action.

 MCR 5.911(A)(2) provides that
"In making the determination, the court shall consider and make findings on the following criteria before a waiver is granted:
*401"(a) the child’s prior record and character, physical and mental maturity, and pattern of living;
"(b) the seriousness of the offense;
"(c) even though less serious, if the offense is part of a repetitive pattern of offenses which would lead to a determination that the child may be beyond rehabilitation under the regular statutory juvenile procedures;
"(d) the relative suitability of programs and facilities available to the juvenile and criminal courts for the child;
"(e) whether the best interests of the public welfare and the protection of the public security, generally, require that the child stand trial as an adult offender.”
A similar provision is found in MCL 712A.4; MSA 27.3178(598.4):
"(4) Upon a showing of probable cause, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether or not the interests of the child and the public would be served best by granting a waiver of jurisdiction to the criminal court. In making the determination, the court shall consider the following criteria:
"(a) The prior record and character of the child, his physical and mental maturity and his pattern of living.
"(b) The seriousness of the offense.
"(c) Whether the offense, even if less serious, is part of a repetitive pattern of offenses which would lead to a determination that the child may be beyond rehabilitation under existing juvenile programs and statutory procedures.
"(d) The relative suitability of programs and facilities available to the juvenile and criminal courts for the child.
"(e) Whether it is in the best interests of the public welfare and the protection of the public security that the child stand trial as an adult offender.”

 Defendant was convicted of felony murder in the Recorder’s Court for the City of Detroit on November 24, 1978, and, on December 1, 1978, he was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment.

 Because many lower courts have interpreted Schumacher to require findings on "amenability” as an additional requirement, we wish to emphasize at this time that we do not read Schumacher as superimposing upon the criteria already provided by statute and court rule, a rule requiring additional findings on the juvenile’s amenability to treatment, or giving undue weight or preeminence to the factors under which "amenability” to rehabilitation is considered.

 The sentence to which an accused may be subject if convicted in the adult system is not a proper consideration, under either the statutory or court rule criteria, in the probate court’s initial waiver determination.