MATTER OF J A
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 92-223 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1992 IN THE MATTER OF J. A Youth. APPEAL FROM: A., District Court of the In and for the County The Honorable William Thirteenth Judicial of Big Horn, J. Speare, Judge District, presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Chris For J. Nelson, Nelson & Gai, Billings, Montana Respondent: Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General, Patricia J. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Christine Cooke, Big Horn County Attorney, Donna K. Heffington, Deputy County Attorney, Hardin, Montana Justice Karla J.A. M. Gray appeals prosecution to from the Big The sole issue finding committed in his at the friend were Jace shooting peanuts. while Billy's later the the transferring Thirteenth Judicial erred Youth Court that the alleged in offense was Billy Hardin, objects in Billy the in and peanuts Saint with the the safety Vincent on. eating toward conflicting rifle they J.A.'s and began is and Neither guns. and moved evidence that them had building clear at J.A. building. even the youths with Orthman the other Montana. discharge The died three rifles nor is in and caliber would it J.A. Billy as discharged Hospital in to into Billings same day. The State a delinquent State .22 gun. but Court the factory requested events, abdomen. committed it the Youth Court. We affirm. appellant cousin, J.A. the whether a can of peanuts carrying subsequent is and other J.A.'s found of of manner. had was defective: Billy the Rogers the believe sugar pigeons Ben Arbogast, weapon to 1991, abandoned of Montana. an aggressive 11, Opinion Court on appeal cause On February were an order County, probable the District Horn District, delivered of Montana youth and by an adult, subsequently District Court. motion. J.A. Montana's a petition that would moved After filed to he committed constitute transfer a hearing, alleging an that was which, offense J.A. if negligent homicide. the case Youth the Youth from Court The Court granted to the appealed. Youth Court Act authorizes 2 the transfer of cases from youth court The transfer to district statute before a transfer certain probable court sets forth the can be ordered: transfer. Thus, transfer is within in probable the in regard, Fact MCA. analysis, that "the asserts evidence to support or the offense premeditated specifically that Our overall order its standard to court find was committed manner." found as follows discretion. to reviewing above, the In this in Finding of of 164. court's a court's the court's standard of fact findings. 3 a youth the court because, MCA, ultimately our in the context 231Mont. court 231 Mont. is appropriate substantial K.M.B., of (1988), Heretofore, was whether sufficient is whether 5 41-5-206, discretion. findings court of K.M.H. under contain on appeal to district This not [J.A.'s] of Billy criminal 18. review Matter believe that the shooting constituting does of Fact a transfer MCA, transfer supports record a matter 752 P.2d 162, discussed the Finding transferring abused 206, decision 18: Appellant left the MCA, is at issue that alleged There is probable cause to behavior leading to and including Orthman was aggressive behavior negligence. 183, In the "may" order the of 5 41-5-206, MCA, requires violent, the Youth Court 41-5-206, are discretion. 41-5-206(1)(d), an aggressive, must be met criteria final the court's cause to believe which are met, the court Only one of the requirements Section criteria circumstances. Section requirements u. certain among the required cause findings. event the statutory here. under standard 180, as is for of a ยง 41-5- credible evidence at 183, 752 P.2d at 164. While clearly we recently erroneous first substantial standard of prong the Credit 1285, AssIn that in reviewing clearly evidence Prod. have clarified court erroneous supports the findings test court's utilize of fact, remains the whether Interstate findings. probable of the record cause aggressive to believe manner. It transfer hearing hearing, is true Ben testified not confront Billy supports that does not the that offense the finding of in an at the finding. At the was an accident; J.A. did premeditated or aggressive of the shooting. also 820 P.2d testimony court's in a violent, However, 323, was committed Ben Arbogast's the shooting manner at the time 320, the Youth Court's support that or act 250 Mont. a 1287. A review v. DeSaye (1991), we will to Detective that is There, the record contains statement John Shaw of the Big Horn County Sheriff's at variance Ben stated from his that J.A. testimony towards Billy the pointed at the gun was not J.A. at was "acting gun as he walked ahead. an earlier hearing. reckless" prior but Department transfer really immediately floor, the with to the the shooting: was pointing was angry at the time because Billy by Ben straight would not give him the peanuts. In addition, psychiatric the social worker treatment for testified as to certain look of shooting sheer the stress hatred and Ben's court heard who worked induced with from on J.A.'s of J.A.'s just Miller including seconds behavior a sought incident. Ben made to him, face 4 Don Miller, Ben when he by the shooting statements description testimony the before the at the time as aggressive. Although aggressive the is conflicts to 418, the of court, Health is not function Court of R.J.W. 16, in custody 417. we will Fact J.A.'s If to the before "confronted" Billy on to find probable clearly supports a position demeanor 215 Mont. exists Mental entered believe J.A.'s was aggressive. the Youth Court's finding that J.A. It behavior went leading Substantial and that 112. Finding of the can of peanuts. that 413, to support 736 P.2d 110, to and credible finding is not erroneous. Appellant consider" contends whether probable 220, on v. State appellant Court that there Rodriguez that further failure to entering Finding 18. that aggressive On that (1981), this recite the court basis, to "seriously make the finding the found manner, based on its argument testimony further that 411, 628 (1975), reliance P.2d is premised 280, on which it contends that on the relied it is the act was Q& committed rejection 5 of must be remanded to the Youth This Appellant and in further 192 Mont. matter findings. court's to failed by In re Rodney Dean Stevenson 538 P.2d 5. asserts for the Youth Court was evidence cause as required 167 Mont. likely" 423, was resolve determination. cause cause to believe the shooting in the Youth Court probable to the evidence 419, over possession evidence is is assessing court's it, there conduct of Helm (1985), 226 Mont. that to and including court sufficient defer (1987), our The trial this Based on the record of whether it of witnesses. 698 P.2d 414, the to evidence. that credibility as contradictory, in superior evidence of certain in "quite in an of the State's proposed findings Nothing recitation of fact. in Stevenson of the Court's set testimony findings factors Mont. at sufficient the considered." namely, whether specific finding cause Furthermore, the without in court at 416, J.A.'s light likely Rodricuez was confrontation believe that these found the states Affirmed. 1 6 the "all Youth other factor "it is was seriously It factor conduct 167 that is clear that at issue here, it and a specific no aggressive detailed considered. aggressive; findings, merit. We cnoncur: each that 628 P.2d at 283. conduct of requires the only statutory regarding to 10. the on which must be carefully shows that considered requires evidence Stevenson at record 192 Mont. the Youth Court that based. P.2d Rodricuez or other by statute*' 538 if probable are forth 229, or was appellant's conduct entered finding aggressive. contention is totally a of
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.
