In re D.F.B. – Minnesota
Nature of the Case
This case involves the courts discretion in deciding whether a juvenile offender should be referred for prosecution as an adult. The case demonstrates how courts can be divided over the proper treatment of serious juvenile offenders who have no past history of misconduct.
Facts
On February 18, 1988, sixteen year old David Brom (D) killed both of his parents and his younger brother and sister with an axe. Brom was a high school sophomore with a B+ average. He appeared to be a well adjusted young man to his teachers and peers and had no history of aggressiveness or misconduct. He was, however, depressed and previously had attempted suicide.
The trial court concluded that the state had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Brom posed a threat to public safety and that he could not be treated before he turned nineteen. The court of appeals reversed and Brom appealed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Issue
- If a juvenile rebuts the presumption set out by the Minnesota legislature that favors a referral for adult prosecution, must the entire record be examined to determine whether the state has shown clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile should be tried as an adult?
Holding and Rule of Law
- Yes. If a juvenile rebuts the presumption set out by the Minnesota legislature that favors a referral for adult prosecution, the entire record must be examined to determine whether the state has shown clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile should be tried as an adult.
When the defendant produces a significant amount of evidence that rebuts a prima facie case for referral to adult court, the court must ask whether the state has produced clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile will be better served in the adult system. The court will look at the threat the juvenile poses to public safety as well as whether effective treatment is available in the juvenile system. The entire record must be examined to determine this. At trial there was divided expert testimony as to the effectiveness of treatment options at the juvenile level and as to the threat Brom posed. Considering the severity of the crime, the manner in which Brom committed the offense, the interests of public safety and the weakness of Brom’s expert testimony, we hold that the state has met its burden of clear and convincing evidence.
Disposition
Affirmed.
Notes
Although the statute states that courts need to look at the threat to public safety and the availability of treatment, the court seems to take other factors into account such as the manner in which the crime was committed.