Court Opinion

ID: 9689674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:42:41.351993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:51.333140
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, Justice
(concurring specially).
Although I agree that this matter should be affirmed, I cannot concur in that portion of the majority opinion which holds that Minn.St. 260.155, subd. 6, affords the juvenile a statutory right to cross-examine witnesses at a dispositional hearing. For the reasons given below, I would affirm the district court’s ruling that this statutory provision applies only to adjudicative hearings wherein the juvenile court’s jurisdiction is determined.
The majority holding relies heavily on the fact that “[tjhere is nothing in subd. 6 [of Minn.St. 260.155] limiting its provision to adjudicative hearings.” While I agree that there is no limiting language on the face of the statute itself, it must be noted that § 260.155 appears in that portion of Ch. 260 which sets forth procedures for determining the jurisdiction of the court over the juvenile. In a subsequent portion of Ch. 260 dealing expressly with dispositions, the legislature has provided quite simply that:
“Before making a disposition in a case, or terminating parental rights, or appointing a guardian for a child the court may consider any report or recommendation made by the county welfare board, probation officer, or licensed child placing agency, or any other information deemed material by the court.” Minn.St. 260.181, subd. 2.
Conspicuously absent is any provision according the juvenile the right to cross-examine the persons furnishing this information. Thus, I cannot agree that the juvenile has a statutory right to cross-examine the probation officer at the disposition hearing.1
Absent a statutory right of cross-examination, the majority would concede that no such right is mandated by the United States Constitution. See, Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949). The logic of these holdings is apparent. As was noted by Mr. Justice Black in Williams, supra:
“ * * * the modern probation report draws on information concerning every aspect of a defendant’s life. The type and extent of this information make totally impractical if not impossible open court testimony with cross-examination. Such a procedure could endlessly delay criminal administration in a retrial of col*515lateral issues.” 337 U.S. 250, 69 S.Ct. 1084, 93 L.Ed. 1343 (footnote omitted).
For these same reasons, I feel it unwise to enlarge the scope of Minn.St. 260.155, subd. 6, so as to permit cross-examination of probation officers at dispositional hearings.

. As noted by the majority, this right is similarly not provided for by the pertinent local rule. See, Rule 5.22, Hennepin County Juvenile Court Rules.