In Re the Welfare of D.F.B.
430 N.W.2d 475, 1988 WL 106433, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 995 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In determining whether to refer a juvenile for adult prosecution for a heinous crime, a court must construe Minnesota Statutes § 260.125 and § 260.011 together, giving dispositive weight to the legislative purpose of promoting public safety and maintaining the integrity of the substantive law, which may overcome evidence of the juvenile's amenability to treatment and lack of a prior criminal record.
Facts:
- D.F.B., a 16-year-old high school sophomore, had discussed killing his family to obtain money and a vehicle to travel to Florida with his friends.
- D.F.B. detailed his plans orally and in a seven-page written list of "chores" necessary to carry out the killings.
- On February 18, 1988, D.F.B.'s parents and two younger siblings were killed with an ax.
- The victims' bodies sustained numerous wounds: 22 on the father, 19 on the mother, 8 on the sister, and 9 on the brother.
- After the killings, D.F.B. took cash from the home, bought groceries, cut and dyed his hair, and was arrested the following day.
- Prior to the killings, D.F.B. had no history of delinquent behavior.
- Medical testimony indicated D.F.B. suffered from a major depressive disorder for years and had attempted suicide twice in the year before the killings.
Procedural Posture:
- Olmsted County filed delinquency petitions against D.F.B. in juvenile court, alleging first and second-degree murder.
- The County, as petitioner, filed a motion to refer D.F.B. for prosecution as an adult.
- The juvenile court, serving as the trial court, denied the motion for reference.
- Olmsted County, as appellant, appealed the juvenile court's denial to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the juvenile court err by denying a motion to refer a juvenile for adult prosecution after finding he rebutted the state's prima facie case, by failing to give sufficient weight to the legislative purpose of promoting public safety and maintaining the integrity of the law as required by the 1980 amendments to Chapter 260?
Opinions:
Majority - Huspeni, J.
Yes, the juvenile court erred. While the juvenile successfully rebutted the state's prima facie case for reference, the court failed to properly apply the 1980 legislative amendments, which shifted the purpose of the juvenile justice system for delinquent acts toward promoting public safety and maintaining the integrity of the substantive law. For a crime this heinous, the state's interest in a fair and serious response from the criminal justice system, as a matter of law, overcomes considerations of the juvenile's treatability or lack of a prior record. The court reasoned that the 1980 amendments, specifically the new purpose clause in Minn. Stat. § 260.011, were a direct legislative repudiation of the reasoning in In re Dahl, which had prevented reference based solely on the seriousness of the crime. The trial court mistakenly reverted to the Dahl analysis after the prima facie case was rebutted, failing to recognize that § 260.011 now requires courts to look beyond the child's individual characteristics and consider the crime's impact on society. The brutal murders of four people demanded a response that upheld the integrity of the law, and retaining jurisdiction in the juvenile court for a maximum of three years would be an 'excessively minimal response.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly re-calibrates the juvenile reference standard in Minnesota for serious crimes, moving away from a purely rehabilitative model. It establishes that the heinous nature of an offense and the public's interest in a meaningful legal response can be dispositive factors mandating adult prosecution, even for a juvenile with no prior record and evidence of psychological issues. The ruling empowers prosecutors and limits judicial discretion in such cases, ensuring that the legislative intent to prioritize public safety and the integrity of the law is the paramount consideration. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for juveniles accused of exceptionally violent crimes to remain within the juvenile system, regardless of their personal amenability to treatment.
