CASE NOTES - JUVENILE LAW - REFERRAL FOR PROSECUTION IN RE WELFARE OF IQS - 244 NW2D 30 (1976)

• NCJ Number: 54964
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 12 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Georgia
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

IMPLICATIONS OF A 1976 MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT DECISION IN WHICH THE COURT REVIEWED NINE APPEALS EITHER REFERRING OR REFUSING TO REFER NINE JUVENILES FOR PROSECUTION AS ADULTS ARE CONSIDERED.

Abstract

REFERENCE FOR PROSECUTION IS THE WAIVER OF JURISDICTION BY A JUVENILE COURT OVER AN ALLEGED CRIMINAL OFFENSE. REFERENCE MEANS THAT THE JUVENILE MAY BE TRIED AS AN ADULT IN A MUNICIPAL OR DISTRICT COURT ON THE REFERRED OFFENSE. THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT, IN 'IN RE WELFARE OF I.Q.S.' (1976), DECIDED THREE MAIN ISSUES: WHETHER DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR REFERRAL IS APPEALABLE BY THE STATE, WHETHER THE REFERENCE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND WHAT FINDINGS-OF-FACT MUST BE MADE BY THE JUVENILE COURT WHEN MAKING THE REFERENCE DECISION. A FOURTH ISSUE, THE AVAILABILITY OF TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR HARDCORE JUVENILES, WAS MENTIONED IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN ONE SPECIAL CONCURRING OPINION. ON THE APPEALABILITY QUESTION, THE COURT HELD THAT A REFUSAL TO REFER IS APPEALABLE BY THE STATE. AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT THE MINNESOTA REFERENCE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS, THE COURT RULED THAT IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF MANY ALTERNATIVES THE JUVENILE COURT MAY USE IN SELECTIVELY ENFORCING CRIMINAL STATUTES, A USE OF COURT DISCRETION HELD CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN OYLER V. BOLES (1962). THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT JUVENILE COURT ORDERS DENYING OR GRANTING REFERENCE MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS CONSIDERED AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. THESE FINDINGS-OF-FACT NEED NOT BE FORMAL BUT MUST SHOW THAT THE COURT HAS INVESTIGATED THE MATTER FULLY, THAT THE DECISION WAS BASED ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, AND WHICH OF THE TWO STATUTORY STANDARDS THE COURT APPLIED. MINNESOTA'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE SEPARATE FACILITIES FOR HARDCORE JUVENILES IS NOTED IN THE DECISION, AND IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE PROVIDING OF SUCH FACILITIES COULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR MANY REFERRAL ORDERS. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE ADD SPECIFIC CRITERIA TO BE CONSIDERED BY JUVENILE COURTS WHEN APPLYING THE STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN THE REFERENCE STATUTE.