United States v. Juvenile Male N.R. , 24 F. App'x 638 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-1489
    ___________
    United States of America,             *
    *
    Plaintiff-Appellee,       *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the
    * District of South Dakota.
    Juvenile Male N.R.,                   *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Defendant-Appellant.      *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 16, 2001
    Filed: December 3, 2001
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, LAY and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    N.R. killed Ron Randall, his stepfather by common law marriage, on January
    22, 2000, at approximately 11:00 p.m. on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation while
    helping him change a flat tire on a vehicle in front of the family trailer. No motive
    was attributed to the violent crime in which the then sixteen year old N.R. used the
    blunt end of an axe to strike Randall. Earlier that day Randall and N.R. purchased
    beer and other alcohol. They drove around the reservation and consumed the alcohol,
    later returning home. After the crime occurred, N.R.’s mother locked the door to the
    trailer and called 911. N.R. broke into the trailer and pursued his mother and
    attempted to choke her and her two younger children, ages five and six. The mother
    was able to escape from N.R. and he subsequently left. N.R. was discovered shortly
    thereafter unconscious in an abandoned building.
    N.R. was charged by superseding information with second degree murder in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1153, and 5032. The Government filed a certificate
    for juvenile proceedings and thereafter moved to transfer the matter into adult court
    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5032. On February 12, 2001, the Honorable Karen E.
    Schreier, United States District Judge, entered an order granting the Government’s
    motion to transfer N.R. to district court proceedings as an adult.
    Under 18 U.S.C. § 5032, the court is directed to hold a hearing to determine
    whether, in the interests of justice, to transfer a juvenile for adult prosecution. The
    court is required to make findings as to each of six factors: 1) the age and social
    background of the juvenile, 2) the nature of the alleged offense, 3) the extent and
    nature of the juvenile’s prior delinquency record, 4) the juvenile’s present intellectual
    development and psychological maturity, 5) the nature of past treatment efforts and
    the juvenile’s response to such efforts, and 6) the availability of programs designed
    to treat the juvenile’s behavioral problems. 
    Id. The court
    then balances the findings.
    United States v. Juvenile J.G., 
    139 F.3d 584
    , 586 (8th Cir. 1998). The weight
    accorded to the individual factors is not predetermined, rather, the district court may
    weigh each as it deems appropriate. United States v. Doe, 
    871 F.2d 1248
    , 1254-55
    (5th Cir. 1989).
    The district court addressed each of the § 5032 factors. The district court found
    N.R.’s age and social background, as well as his insignificant juvenile record,
    weighed in favor of prosecuting N.R. as a juvenile. Yet, it found the nature of the
    offense, a homicide, weighed heavily in favor of prosecuting him as an adult. The
    defense was the homicide took place while N.R. suffered a psychotic break from
    reality and was in the midst of a toxic delirium. Although the district court found
    that N.R. was suffering from a psychotic disorder, the court found N.R.’s inability to
    -2-
    control his behavior, even with the assistance of prescribed medications, favored
    prosecuting N.R. as an adult. It found N.R.’s noncompliance with past treatment and
    the unlikely prospect of successful future treatment presented a great risk of harm to
    those around him and to society in general. The district court also found the number
    of juvenile facilities that accept violent juvenile offenders between the ages of
    eighteen and twenty-one are limited; only two programs were identified as willing to
    take N.R. if sentenced as a juvenile. Further, there is limited time left to rehabilitate
    N.R. since he is eighteen.1 Based on its analysis of the § 5032 factors, the district
    court concluded they weighed in favor of prosecuting N.R. as an adult.
    Our standard of review of the district court’s decision is abuse of discretion.2
    Juvenile 
    J.G., 139 F.3d at 586
    ; United States v. A.W.J., 
    804 F.2d 492
    , 493 (8th Cir.
    1986). The factual findings underlying the decision are reviewed for clear error.
    United States v. G.T.W., 
    992 F.2d 198
    , 199 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Parker,
    
    956 F.2d 169
    , 171 (8th Cir. 1992). The clearly erroneous standard of review is highly
    deferential; the district court’s account of the evidence should not be overturned if it
    is plausible in light of the view of the record in the entirety. Amadeo v. Zant, 
    486 U.S. 214
    , 223 (1988); see also Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 
    470 U.S. 564
    , 573
    (1985) (“‘A finding is “clearly erroneous” when although there is evidence to support
    it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
    conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”) (quoting United States v. United
    States Gypsum Co., 
    333 U.S. 364
    , 395 (1948)).
    1
    N.R.’s date of birth is September 15, 1983.
    2
    N.R. bears a heavy burden because few, if any courts have found the district
    court abused its discretion by failing to properly balance the enumerated factors.
    United States v. Juvenile Male #1, 
    47 F.3d 68
    , 71 (8th Cir. 1995) (“Indeed, no court
    of appeals has ever found that a district court abused its discretion by failing to
    balance properly the six statutory factors.”).
    -3-
    N.R. urges that the district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, due in
    part to factual findings that were clearly erroneous. Under the nature of the offense
    factor, the district court found N.R. and Randall had been fighting prior to the assault.
    Further, the court found the “alleged conduct in committing this homicide weighs
    heavily in favor of prosecuting him as an adult. Not only was the attack with the axe
    upon Randall vicious, but N.R. would also have killed [his mother] and his brother
    and sister if [she] hadn’t outmaneuvered him.” United States v. Juvenile Male N.R.,
    No. 00-50007-01, slip op. at 5 (W.D. S.D. Feb. 12, 2001) (internal citations omitted).
    N.R. counters that he was suffering a psychotic break from reality, he let his mother
    go and the threats to his brother and sister “show just how out of his mind he was
    . . . .” Appellant’s Brief at 24. There is sufficient evidence in the record, which
    includes initial statements made to the authorities by N.R. and his mother, to conclude
    the facts found under the nature of the offense were not clearly erroneous.
    In examining N.R.’s present intellectual development and psychological
    maturity the court found that
    [i]n light of N.R.’s past failures following treatment for his alcohol and
    substance abuse, it is highly probable that N.R. would not remain on his
    psychiatric medication. N.R.’s psychosis, in an unmedicated state,
    presents a grave risk of harm to those around him and to society in
    general. Even in a medicated state, N.R. has not been able to control his
    behavior.
    Juvenile Male N.R., No. 00-50007-01, slip op. at 7. N.R. argues this finding is
    erroneous because N.R. has neither been properly medicated nor was evidence
    adduced that N.R. would not stay on his medication. The Government’s expert
    testified that N.R. was prescribed Zyprexa and Zoloft, still his non-compliance with
    the program treatment continued. The defense expert contended N.R. was not
    medicated, because he was not administered the correct prescription at the necessary
    dosage. The district court’s finding under the factor of intellectual development and
    -4-
    psychological maturity is not clearly erroneous because the district court can properly
    credit testimony of one witness over another. See United States v. Womack, 
    191 F.3d 879
    , 885 (8th Cir. 1999) (“A credibility determination by the district court is
    ‘virtually unreviewable on appeal.’”) (quoting United States v. Martin, 
    28 F.3d 742
    ,
    745-46 (8th Cir. 1994)); United States v. Heath, 
    58 F.3d 1271
    , 1275 (8th Cir. 1995)
    (“A district court’s decision to credit a witness’s testimony over that of another can
    almost never be a clear error unless there is extrinsic evidence that contradicts the
    witness’s story . . . .”). In addition, the district court could extrapolate from prior
    failed rehabilitation attempts, including those while medicated, that N.R. would not
    stay on his medication.
    N.R. contends the finding pertaining to his response to previous treatment is
    clearly erroneous. The district court found N.R. was not amenable to treatment due
    to his failed past treatment history. N.R. alleges the finding “completely ignore[s]
    the opinion of [the defense expert] and the fact that N.R. was not treated for his
    underlying severe mental illness.” Appellant’s Brief at 36. The district court did take
    into account the previous non-treatment of N.R.’s psychological illness. Yet, in light
    of N.R.’s failure to complete two prior programs and his relapse shortly after
    completion of one program, the district court’s finding under this factor is not clearly
    erroneous.
    We have reviewed the arguments of the Government and the defendant
    pertaining to the district court’s exercise of discretion and, although another judge in
    reviewing similar facts might have reached a different conclusion than Judge
    Schreier, we cannot say that Judge Schreier abused her discretion in ordering the
    transfer. See, e.g., United States v. Juvenile Male #1, 
    47 F.3d 68
    , 71 (1995) (“This
    Court will not upset a district court’s determination simply because we would have
    reached a different conclusion had we considered the matter in the first instance.”).
    Under an abuse of discretion standard, this court exercises authority to reverse only
    when the district court’s judgment is not based upon legal principles. Agostoni v.
    -5-
    Felton, 
    521 U.S. 203
    , 238 (1997); see also United States v. Taylor, 
    487 U.S. 326
    , 336
    (1988) (“[D]iscretionary choices are not left to a court’s ‘inclination, but to its
    judgment; and its judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles.’”) (quoting
    Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 
    422 U.S. 405
    , 416 (1975)). This principle of
    deferential appellate review was succinctly stated by Justice Cardozo and reiterated
    by Justice Frankfurter in Brown v. Allen, 
    344 U.S. 443
    , 496 (1953), “[d]iscretion
    without a criterion for its exercise is authorization of arbitrariness.”
    Although equitable arguments can be made on both sides, we cannot say that
    the district court’s ruling did not rest upon legal criterion and judgment; therefore, the
    exercise of discretion in the present case does not admit of abuse.
    Judgment AFFIRMED.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -6-