Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Welfare of J.H.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 4, 2013No. A12-1405Published

1DissentHooten, Judge

I respectfully dissent. There is no dispute that appellant meets the requirements for presumptive certification as an adult. The burden, then, is on appellant to rebut the presumptive certification “by clear and convincing evidence that retaining the proceeding in the juvenile court serves public safety.” Minn.Stat. § 260B.125, subd. 3 (2010); see also Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 18.06, subd. 1. As the majority acknowledges, “a district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify a case for adult prosecution” and its “decision will not be reversed unless the [district] court’s…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
  2. In Re the Welfare of L.A.F.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  3. In Re the Welfare of the Children of J.B.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
  4. In Re Welfare of D.M.D.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  5. In Re the Civil Commitment of RameyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API