IN RE ALEKSANDAR KORALIJA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALEKSANDAR KORALIJA,
Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 6, 2002
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 239409
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-000004-DL
ALEKSANDAR KORALIJA,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this delinquency proceeding, the prosecutor appeals as of right from a January 18,
2002, order dismissing charges against respondent for felonious assault, MCL 750.82, two
counts of domestic assault, MCL 750.81(2), and malicious obstruction of a telephone call, MCL
750.540. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On January 7, 2002, a preliminary hearing was held before Referee Gail Alternburg to
determine if there was probable cause to authorize the filing of the petition. At the hearing,
Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Deputy John Voelkner testified that he was dispatched to
investigate a domestic assault report on January 5, 2002. Respondent’s mother reported that
respondent hit her in her eye with a closed fist and hit her on the right forearm with a coat
hanger. Deputy Voelkner further testified that respondent’s eight-year-old brother, Marco,
reported that he tried to stop respondent, but respondent picked him up and threw him to the
ground. According to respondent’s mother, she tried to call 911 using a cordless phone, but
respondent disabled the phone by throwing it to the ground and he severed the wire to the
charger for a cellular phone.
Respondent admitted to Deputy Voelkner that he punched his mother in the eye and
damaged the telephone equipment. Probation officer Katherine Kinal also interviewed
respondent and reported that respondent explained his behavior by stating that “sometimes
people need to be abused to make them follow the rules.” Respondent’s parents were in the
midst of divorce proceedings and a custody dispute and Kinal recommended that, because of the
-1-
risk of harm to respondent’s mother, respondent should be detained pending further proceedings
and a family assessment.
Following the preliminary hearing, the referee prepared a summary of her findings and
she recommended that the petition be authorized and that respondent be detained, pending a
placement review hearing. Thereafter, respondent filed a request for review of the referee’s
recommendation on two grounds: (1) a lack of probable cause for the felonious assault offense;
and (2) detention was neither required nor necessary. The same day, rather than reviewing the
specific claims raised by respondent, the trial court dismissed the petition in its entirety. Without
oral argument or briefing, the trial court entered the following order:
The Petition is NOT authorized. The Petition is DISMISSED. The minor will be
released from the Youth Home to the custody of his parents. Further custody is
subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the Family Court in the pending divorce
proceedings.
Under the Juvenile Code and court rules addressing the procedures for invoking
jurisdiction, the initial step is the authorization of the petition at either a formal preliminary
hearing or informal preliminary inquiry. MCL 712A.11 states, in part:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if a person gives information to
the court that a juvenile is within section (2)(a)(2) to (6), (b), (c), or (d) of this
chapter, a preliminary inquiry may be made to determine whether the interests of
the public or the juvenile require that further action be taken. If the court
determines that formal jurisdiction should be acquired, the court shall authorize a
petition to be filed.
(2) Only the prosecuting attorney may file a petition requesting the court
to take jurisdiction of a juvenile allegedly within section 2(a)(1) of this chapter. If
the prosecuting attorney submits a petition requesting the court to take
jurisdiction of a juvenile allegedly within section 2(a)(1) of this chapter and the
court determines that formal jurisdiction should be acquired, the court shall
authorize a petition to be filed. [Emphasis added.]
Furthermore, under MCR 5.932:
The court may authorize a petition to be filed and docketed on the formal
calendar if it appears to the court that formal court action is in the best interest of
the juvenile and the public.
The trial court’s sua sponte rejection of the findings and recommendations of the referee
and its order dismissing the petition in its entirety makes no reference to the evidence presented
at the preliminary hearing or legal arguments offered by the parties. Indeed, the copy of the
preliminary hearing transcript provided to this Court is dated January 27, 2002, nine days after
the trial court’s January 18, 2002 ruling. Thus, the trial court failed to point to any record
evidence to support its decision or to counter the referee’s conclusion that “the interests of the
public or the juvenile require that further action be taken.” See MCL 712A.11(1).
-2-
It is not discernable from the court’s order that it was aware of the factual or legal issues
raised in this matter and there is no indication of the grounds on which the trial court found the
referee’s recommendations legally erroneous or factually insufficient. Again, if a determination
is made that formal jurisdiction “should” be acquired, the court “shall authorize a petition to be
filed.” MCL 712A.11(1) and (2). Thus, the trial court was required to authorize the petition if it
determined that formal jurisdiction should be acquired. While it may very well be within the
trial court’s discretion to determine whether formal jurisdiction should be acquired, the utter lack
of a legal or factual basis for the dismissal, particularly in light of overwhelming evidence that
respondent committed the charged offenses, compels us to reverse and remand for consideration
of the evidence presented and an explanation of the legal and factual rationale for the dismissal.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
