Minn. R. Juv. P. 18.09
As amended through October 28, 2024
Subdivision 1. General Procedure. A child may bring a motion to withdraw the waiver of certification hearing and stipulation to certification order:
The motion shall be made in the juvenile court that entered the certification order. A motion shall also be filed for a stay of proceedings in the adult court to which the case was certified.
Subd. 2. Basis for Motion. The motion shall state with particularity one of the following bases for granting withdrawal of waiver:
Subd. 3. Timing and Effect of Hearing. A hearing shall be held within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the motion. Following the hearing, if the court grants the motion to withdraw the waiver of certification hearing:
Minn. R. Juv. P. 18.09
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.125, subd. 6 (2002), on a proper motion, the court may hold a certification hearing for an adult charged with a juvenile offense if:
(1) the adult was alleged to have committed an offense before his or her 18th birthday; and
(2) a petition was timely filed under Minnesota Statutes, sections 260B.141(2002) and 628.26(2002). The court may not certify the matter if the adult demonstrates that the delay was purposefully caused by the state in order to gain an unfair advantage. Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.125, subd. 6 (2002); see also In re Welfare of A.N.J., 521 N.W.2d 889, 891 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). Juvenile court retains jurisdiction to hear a certification motion filed after the child's 19th birthday provided a delinquency petition has been timely filed and the delay was not the result of an improper state purpose.
Much of the text ofMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.05, subd. 1(A) is taken from Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.163(2002).
The sanction for delay inMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.05, subd. 1(B) and18.07, subd. 3 is modeled after Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.10, which as of January 1, 2010 is now Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.09. See In re Welfare of J.J.H., 446 N.W.2d 680, 681-82 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) (order issued 66 days after hearing, 38 days after submission of written argument; because rule contains no sanction, reversal denied). See also McIntosh v. Davis, 441 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. 1989) (where alternative remedies available, mandamus not appropriate to enforce time limit of Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.10 speedy trial rule).
On continuation questions underMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.05, subd. 1(B), the victim should have input but does not have the right of a party to appear and object.
Most of the waiver language inMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.05, subd. 1(C) is taken from the 1983 version of Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.03.
Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.05, subd. 2(B) requires a determination on appearances of necessary persons. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.163, subd. 7 (2002) the custodial parent or guardian of the child who is the subject of the certification proceedings must accompany the child at each hearing, unless the court excuses the parent or guardian from attendance for good cause shown. The failure of a parent or guardian to comply with this duty may be punished as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.154(2002).
Much of the content ofMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.05, subd. 3 is modeled after Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.04 and 18.05, subd. 1. The court may employ police statements for probable cause determinations in the same manner as permitted in adult proceedings under Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.04. Also note In re Welfare of E.Y.W., 496 N.W.2d 847, 850 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (juvenile not entitled to exclusionary hearing before decision on probable cause).
Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.05, subd. 3 and18.07, subd. 2(A)(2) eliminate the need for a probable cause finding when a delinquency accusation is presented by an indictment. Accusation by indictment is uncommon, but might occur more often as the result of grand jury proceedings conducted after 1994 statutory amendments on the question of whether a juvenile is to be accused of first degree murder in adult proceedings. See Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.007, subd. 6 (2002). Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.05, subd. 4(B) is consistent with case law. Because the certification question is dispositional in nature, strict application of the rules of evidence is thought to be inappropriate. Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.05does not address the consequences of the child's testimony at a hearing. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) and State v. Christenson, 371 N.W.2d 228 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). Cf. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).
When a child waives probable cause solely for the purpose of certification, that waiver does not preclude the child from litigating probable cause in a subsequent prosecution on the underlying offense.
Following presentation of evidence by the party with the burden of proof underMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.05, subd. 4(C) or (D), the adverse party may move the court for directed relief on the grounds that the burden of proof has not been met by the evidence presented.
The determination under Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.06, subd. 1 whether an offense would result in a presumptive commitment to prison under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines should be analyzed pursuant to those guidelines. The public safety factors listed in Rule 18.06, subd. 3 mirror those set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.125, subd. 4 and eliminate the need for non-offense related evidence of dangerousness. See In re Welfare of D.M.D, 607 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 2000).
Under Minnesota Statutes, sections 260B.101, subd. 2, 260B.007, subd. 6(b), and 260B.125, subd. 10 (2002), the accusation of first degree murder by a 16 or 17 year old child takes the case out of the delinquency jurisdiction of the juvenile court. If this accusation is first made by complaint, and is followed by an indictment that does not accuse the child of first degree murder but of some other crime, the proceedings come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court, but subject to action of the juvenile court on any motion for certification of the proceedings to adult court. In these circumstances, the juvenile court would deal with an accusation by indictment in the same fashion as proceedings might otherwise occur on a juvenile court petition. Once adult court proceedings begin on an indictment for first degree murder, regardless of the ultimate conviction, the proceedings remain within adult court jurisdiction. Indictments may be received by any district court judge including one sitting in juvenile court.
Under Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.01, first degree murder cases are prosecuted by an indictment, but the proceedings can begin by complaint. State v. Behl, 564 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 1997). As a result, the prosecuting attorney can initiate a first degree murder accusation in adult court proceedings.
Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.02, subd. 2 repeats the procedural requirement stated in Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.125, subd. 9 (2002).
Rule 18 previously contained a provision that allowed jail credit for time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident on which further proceedings are to occur. See Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 18.06, subd. 1(D) (repealed 2003). That provision was deleted because jail credit is awarded at the time of sentencing in adult court, and is thus governed by the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Procedure. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B).
References in this rule to "child's counsel" include the child who is proceeding pro se. Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 1.01.