In Re the Welfare of J.L.B.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1DissentCrippen, Judge
The trial court’s decision rests on an erroneous pronouncement of law. Because to affirm under governing law we must assume clear and convincing evidence where there is none, I respectfully dissent.
I. Error
The trial court concluded the prosecuting authority demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that public safety would not be served by further juvenile court proceedings. The court erred in reaching this conclusion by relying emphatically and singularly on the circumstances of the offense and the age of the offender.
Consistent with the scheme of Minnesota’s juvenile laws, the supreme…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Matter of Welfare of DahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- In Re the Welfare of D.F.B.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- In Re the Welfare of K. P. H.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- In Re the Welfare of C.A.N.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- In Re the Welfare of D.S.F.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.