Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Milk

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 1994No. 18483Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMiller, Justice

I dissent as to the majority’s conclusion that hearsay evidence is not admissible at a juvenile transfer hearing.

Juvenile dispositional proceedings are fundamentally different from juvenile adjudicatory proceedings and criminal actions. A transfer hearing does not result in a determination of delinquency, it does not result in a determination-of guilt, and it does not result in confinement or other punishment. The purpose of the transfer hearing is not to *319adjudicate but to determine whether retention of the child in the juvenile system is in the best interests of the child and the public. I…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Kent v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. People v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  4. People v. TaylorIllinois Supreme Court · 1979
  5. People v. Chi Ko WongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976

25 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