NO. 94-122
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1994
IN THE MATTER OF
T. N.
A Youth.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Fergus,
The Honorable Peter Rapkoch, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Jon A. Oldenburg, Lewistown, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Cregg
Coughlin, Assistant Attorney General, Helena,
Montana: Thomas P. Meissner, Fergus County Attorney,
Lewistown, Montana
-
Cl&k ."
Justice Fred J. FJeber delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Tenth Judicial
District Court, .Fergus County, transferring the case of T.N. to
Adult Criminal Court to be tried for the offense of Deliberate
Homicide. We affirm.
We consider the following issue on appeal:
Did the District Court abuse its discretion in transferring T.N.
from Youth Court to the Adult Court of the Tenth Judicial District?
T.N. is fifteen years old. His parents are divorced; his
mother lives in Billings, Montana, and his deceased father lived in
ROY r Montana. T.N. stated that he loved his mother, but he hated
Billings, and he hated his father, but he loved Roy, Montana. T.N.
was living with his father at the time of his father's death.
Evidence exists -that T.N.' s father engaged in both physical and
emotional abuse of T.N.
On September 30, 1993, the Fergus County Sheriff's office
received a report from an individual in Roy, who complained that a
foul smell was emanating from a neighborhood residence. At 11:30
a.m. on that day, a deputy responded to this complaint. Upon
reaching the residence, the deputy did not find anyone about and
called the Undersheriff for advice on how to proceed.
The deputy recruited Gary Smith, a business person and an
E.M.T.(Emergency Medical Technician), to come to the residence.
The two men forced their way into the house where they discovered
the body of Michael Nelson, T.N.'s father, laying on the living
room couch with blankets and clothes piled on top of him. A
2
gunshot wound to the head was obvious. The coroner and further
assistance from the Sheriff's office were requested.
While the officers were investigating, several high school
students gathered outside the residence. Because of talks with
these students, officers learned that T.N. might have information
about the death of his father.
One of the officers went with the students to the Roy School
building to have the students write out statements. During this
process, another student approached the deputy and stated that he
had T.N. on the telephone from Billings and that T.N. was admitting
that he had killed his father.
The deputy got on the phone and taped the conversation with
T.N. T.N. told the deputy that he had shot his father in the back
of the head with a 30-30 rifle early in the morning before school
started.
T.N. was charged in Youth Court of the Tenth Judicial
District, Fergus County, as a delinquent youth or a youth in need
of supervision and was accused of committing the offense of
Deliberate Homicide. The Ferqus County Attorney moved to transfer
the case to Adult Criminal Court. A hearing was held on this
motion and on February 11, 1994, the court entered its Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order which transferred this case
to Adult Criminal Court. T.N. appeals this order.
Did the District Court abuse its discretion in transferring
T.N. from Youth Court to the Adult Court of the Tenth Judicial
District?
3
The court no.ted that one psychologist and one psychiatrist had
testified to the mental condition of T.N. and that although they
disagreed on certain aspects of T.N.'s rehabilitation, both doctors
agreed that T.N. needed a structured residential setting in order
for rehabilitation to occur. Both doctors agreed that Yellowstone
Treatment Center in Billings would be adequate and Pine Hills
School for Boys would not.
Also in its findings, the court noted that Dr. Rich, a
psychiatrist and the director of the Deaconess Psychiatric Center
in Billings, believed that it would take T.N. a one year period to
be rehabilitated at Yellowstone Treatment Center (Yellowstone).
The court did not find this testimony to be as credible as that of
Dr. Gumper, a clinical psychologist at Deaconess Medical Center in
Billings. The court found that it was more credible, according to
Dr. Gumper, that T.N. would need several years of treatment in a
structured residential setting, although there is no way to tell
exactly how much treatment T.N. would need. The court agreed in
its findings wpth Dr. Gumper's assessment that it would be
advisable to be able to require residential treatment of the youth
beyond the time period that would be available through the youth
facilities, but the youth court's jurisdiction is limited. Because
of the limitations placed upon the youth court for youth past the
age of 19, Dr. Gunper, and the court, had serious reservations that
the youth system would be able to require residential treatment
beyond the age of 19 if needed.
Further, the court found that both doctors agreed that T.N.
4
would be resistan,t to treatment, possibly lengthening the time that
he would be required to be in treatment. The court also noted that
Dr. Gumper stated that the ability to secure T.N. in a locked
environment would be advisable. The court further found that
Yellowstone does not have the security necessary and Pine Hills has
no facilities for T.N.'s rehabilitation.
The court, therefore, found that substantial evidence existed
to show that T.N. killed his father in an aggressive, violent, or
premeditated manner and that the seriousness of the offense and the
protection of the community require treatment of the youth beyond
that afforded by the juvenile facilities. The court further
explained that the youth system is seriously limited in the time
that it could provide for T.N.'s treatment.
Appellant argues that the ruling law on transfer of juveniles
to adult court is, § 41-5-206, MCA:
Transfer to criminal court. (1) After a petition has
been filed alleging delinquency, the court may, upon
m o t i o n o f the county attorney, before hearing the
petition on its merits, t r a n s f e r t h e m a t t e r o f t h e
prosecution to the district court if:
idi the court finds upon the hearing of all relevant
evidence that there is probable cause to believe that:
(i) the youth committed the delinquency act alleged;
(ii) the seriousness of the offense and the protection of
the community require treatment of the youth beyond that
afforded by juvenile facilities; and
(iii) the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive,
violent, or premeditated manner.
T.N. concedes that the only part of this statute that is in dispute
is subsection (d)(ii)--the seriousness of the offense and the
protection of the community require treatment of the youth beyond
that afforded by juvenile facilities. T.N. argues that there was
5
no evidence to support the court's determination that T.N. was a
serious threat to the community or that T.N. required treatment
beyond that of the youth facilities. T.N. 's argument here is that
he cannot be transferred to adult court simply because the crime he
committed was a serious one.
The state argues that sufficient evidence exists to support
the court's findings.
The standard of review on appeal of a youth court order
transferring a matter to district court is whether the youth court
abused its discretion. In re J.A. (1992), 255 Mont. 214, 841 P.2d
1130. This court will not find abuse of discretion where there is
substantial evidence to support the findings of the youth court.
J.A., 255 Mont. at 216. Nor will this Court resolve conflicts in
evidence for it is the trial court's domain to assess the demeanor
and credibility of witnesses. J A
c, 255 Mont. at 216. When
considering the individual findings of that court we review the
findings to to see if they are clearly erroneous according to the
three-prong test we set out in Interstate Prod. Credit Ass'n v.
DeSaye (1991), 250 Mont. 320, 820 P.2d 1285. While we have
clarified that we will utilize a clearly erroneous standard in
reviewing court findings of fact, the first prong of the clearly
erroneous test remains whether substantial evidence supports the
court's findings. J.A., 255 Mont. at 216.
An extensive review of the record indicates that two expert
witnesses testified concerning the mental state of T.N. and his
ability to be rehabilitated within the youth system. Also
6
testifying was Sheila Rebich.(Rebich), a clinical social worker for
Pine Hills School for Boys and Michael Otto (Otto), the chief
juvenile probation officer for the Tenth Judicial District of the
State of Montana.
Both Dr. Gumper and Dr. Rich agreed that Pine Hills School was
not a proper placement for T.N. because the school did not provide
the rehabilitation that T.N. requires. This was further borne out
by the testimony of Ms. Rebich who also stated that the school
would not be able to provide serious rehabilitation.
Both Dr. Gumper and Dr. Rich agreed that Yellowstone Treatment
Center in Billings would be an adequate placement. However, Dr.
Gumper testified the youth system could only provide residential
arrangements for T.N. up to the age of 19. Further, Yellowstone
placements usually last from 10 to 14 months. If T.N. were to be
sent there, Yellowstone would have to make special arrangements for
T.N. Otto testified that officials of the school had already been
contacted about placement of T.N. and had stated that Yellowstone
would probably not accept T.N. If Yellowstone does not accept T.N.
the only other placement would be Pine Hills, an unsuitable
placement according to everyone who testified.
Of particular significance is the length of time that T.N. may
require treatment. Dr. Gumper was very specific in stating that it
would be preferable to have the option of providing residential
treatment for T.N. past the age of 19. However, such an
arrangement is impossible under the system in Montana. otto
testified that the court would lose jurisdiction of T.N. once it
7
placed him in a facility. The Department of Family Services would
assume jurisdiction of T.N. after the court's initial placement.
Technically, the Department would have control of T.N. until age
21; however, there could be no residential placement anywhere
beyond age 19.
The court made a point throughout the hearing to ask questions
on its own. It questioned Dr. Gumper at one point as to whether
the youth system would provide the extended treatment that Dr.
Gumper stated that T.N. needed. Dr. Gumper answered that the only
way the youth system could adequately rehabilitate T.N. would be if
supplemental funding were to be provided to the institution in
which T.N. was finally placed. There was no evidence presented at
the hearing that additional funding could or would be provided
either to Pine Hills or Yellowstone.
We conclude that there was substantial evidence from which the
court could have determined that the youth system was inadequate to
handle T.N.'s needs.
On the issue of whether T.N. posed a threat to the community,
Dr. Gumper spoke to this at some length stating that a possibility
existed that once T.N. became attached to someone in a close
relationship, he may feel pressured into the same kind of violent
behavior. Both doctors testified that T.N. had not shown remorse
about the killing and had not shown any signs of coming to terms
with the seriousness of what had happened. While both Dr. Gumper
and Dr. Rich felt it unlikely that there would be another violent
occurrence, neither of them ruled it out.
8
T.N argues that what he needs is rehabilitation and not
incarceration. The fact that this action is being sent to the
criminal justice system does not preclude rehabilitation and
mandate incarceration. The court has other options available to it
should T.N. be found guilty of this crime.
We conclude that the record establishes that the court had
substantial evidence before it that T.N. could pose a threat to the
community if not removed from society at least for the period of
time needed for rehabilitation.
We hold that. the District Court did not abuse its discretion
in transferring T.N. from Youth Court to the Adult Court of the
Tenth Judicial District.
Affirmed.
We Concur:
9