43-276 County attorney; criminal charge, juvenile court petition, pretrial diversion, or mediation; determination; considerations.
43-276. County attorney;criminal charge, juvenile court petition, pretrial diversion, or mediation;determination; considerations.In cases comingwithin subdivision (1) of section 43-247, when there is concurrent jurisdiction,or subdivision (2) or (4) of section 43-247, when the juvenile is under theage of sixteen years, the county attorney shall, in making the determinationwhether to file a criminal charge, file a juvenile court petition, offer juvenilepretrial diversion, or offer mediation, consider: (1) The type of treatmentsuch juvenile would most likely be amenable to; (2) whether there is evidencethat the alleged offense included violence or was committed in an aggressiveand premeditated manner; (3) the motivation for the commission of the offense;(4) the age of the juvenile and the ages and circumstances of any others involvedin the offense; (5) the previous history of the juvenile, including whetherhe or she had been convicted of any previous offenses or adjudicated in juvenilecourt, and, if so, whether such offenses were crimes against the person orrelating to property, and other previous history of antisocial behavior, ifany, including any patterns of physical violence; (6) the sophistication andmaturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his or her home,school activities, emotional attitude and desire to be treated as an adult,pattern of living, and whether he or she has had previous contact with lawenforcement agencies and courts and the nature thereof; (7) whether thereare facilities particularly available to the juvenile court for treatmentand rehabilitation of the juvenile; (8) whether the best interests of thejuvenile and the security of the public may require that the juvenile continuein secure detention or under supervision for a period extending beyond hisor her minority and, if so, the available alternatives best suited to thispurpose; (9) whether the victim agrees to participate in mediation; (10) whetherthere is a juvenile pretrial diversion program established pursuant to sections 43-260.02 to 43-260.07; (11) whether the juvenile has been convicted of orhas acknowledged unauthorized use or possession of a firearm; (12) whethera juvenile court order has been issued for the juvenile pursuant to section 43-2,106.03; (13) whether thejuvenile is a criminal street gang member; and (14) suchother matters as the county attorney deems relevant to his or her decision. SourceLaws 1981, LB 346, § 32; Laws 1998, LB 1073, § 22; Laws 2000, LB 1167, § 20; Laws 2003, LB 43, § 14; Laws 2008, LB1014, § 40; Laws 2009, LB63, § 30.AnnotationsIn deciding whether to transfer adult criminal proceedings to juvenile court, the court having jurisdiction must carefully consider the criteria set forth in this section. In weighing the criteria set forth in this section, there is no arithmetical computation or formula required in the court's consideration of the statutory criteria. In order to retain jurisdiction pursuant to section 29-1816, the district court does not need to resolve every factor in this section against the juvenile. State v. McCracken, 260 Neb. 234, 615 N.W.2d 902 (2000).In weighing the factors set forth in this section, there is no arithmetical computation or formula required in the court's consideration of the statutory criteria. In order to retain the proceedings, the court need not resolve every factor against the juvenile. There are no weighted factors and no prescribed method by which more or less weight is assigned to each specific factor. It is a balancing test by which public protection and societal security are weighed against the practical and nonproblematical rehabilitation of the juvenile. State v. Mantich, 249 Neb. 311, 543 N.W.2d 181 (1996).In deciding whether to transfer adult criminal proceedings to juvenile court, the court having jurisdiction over a pending criminal prosecution must carefully consider the criteria set forth in this section. State v. Reynolds, 247 Neb. 608, 529 N.W.2d 64 (1995).Where 16-year-old defendant was charged with violent adult crimes, was an obvious threat to the public, and, if convicted, could not easily be rehabilitated in the juvenile correctional system or properly punished for the atrocities he would be adjudged to have committed, no abuse of discretion occurred in denial of transfer to juvenile court. State v. Garza, 241 Neb. 934, 492 N.W.2d 32 (1992).The court having jurisdiction over a pending criminal prosecution of a juvenile must consider the juvenile's request for waiver to transfer the proceedings to the juvenile court in light of the criteria set forth in this section. State v. Doyle, 237 Neb. 944, 468 N.W.2d 594 (1991).The factors set forth in this section provide a balancing test by which the protection of the public is weighed against the practical and not problematical rehabilitation of the juvenile. For retention of the criminal proceedings, the court need not resolve every factor against the juvenile. The standard of review applicable to an appeal from denial of a motion to transfer to juvenile court is abuse of discretion. State v. Phinney, 236 Neb. 76, 459 N.W.2d 200 (1990).In deciding whether to grant a requested waiver of jurisdiction and transfer proceedings to juvenile court pursuant to section 29-1816, the court having jurisdiction over a pending criminal prosecution must carefully consider the juvenile's request in light of the criteria set forth in this section. State v. Nevels, 235 Neb. 39, 453 N.W.2d 579 (1990).This section and section 29-1816 provide a balancing test in which public protection and security are weighed against practical, and not problematical, rehabilitation in determining whether there should be a waiver of jurisdiction over a criminal proceeding to the juvenile court. State v. Trevino, 230 Neb. 494, 432 N.W.2d 503 (1988).This section and section 29-1816 involve a balancing test, namely, public protection and societal security weighed against practical and not problematic rehabilitation, in determining whether there should be a waiver of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings with a transfer to the juvenile court. Where the record supported the trial court's findings that the crime was violent, that the defendant may require treatment beyond the age of majority, that defendant's rehabilitative needs were beyond the scope of the juvenile court, and that more protection of the public was required than would be available in juvenile court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction. State v. Ryan, 226 Neb. 59, 409 N.W.2d 579 (1987).