Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Juvenile Law: Jurisdiction Under the Kansas Juvenile Code: Juvenile Adjudication or Adult Trial?" Carmen D. Tucker, 27 W.L.J. 394, 399, 400, 401 (1988).

"Juvenile Law: Juvenile Involuntarily Absent from a Waiver Hearing is Not Denied Due Process [State v. Muhammad, 237 Kan. 850, 703 P.2d 835 (1985)]," Daniel J. Gronniger, 25 W.L.J. 598, 602, 604, 605, 608 (1986).

"Juvenile Law: Prosecuting Juveniles As Adults," The Hon. Tom Malone, 60 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 39 (1991).

"Juvenile Informants - A Necessary Evil?" Darci G. Osther, 39 W.L.J. 106 (1999).

"Justice and Juveniles in Kansas: Where We Have Been and Where We Are Headed," Carla J. Stovall, 47 K.L.R. 1021 (1999).

"Testing the Validity of Confessions and Waivers of the Self-Incrimination Privilege in the Juvenile Court," Trey Meyer, 47 K.L.R. 1035 (1999).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Detention of juveniles in jail. 93-86.

Prosecution of juvenile traffic offenders; detainment of juvenile in jail. 94-68.

Juvenile offenders; application of Kansas offender registration act and the juvenile offender information system. 97-101.

Municipal courts; disclosure of records of juvenile charged with tobacco ordinance infraction. 1998-36.

Disqualification for admission to Kansas Law Enforcement Center. 1999-34.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Trial court required to permit prosecution to present evidence at waiver hearing which could be offered at preliminary hearing. In re Davis, 234 Kan. 766, 767, 771, 674 P.2d 1045 (1984).

2. Cited in holding no appellate review of refusal of jury trial in juvenile offender proceeding. Findlay v. State, 235 Kan. 462, 465, 681 P.2d 20 (1984).

3. Cited; provisions of K.S.A. 60-460(dd) (statements by children) inapplicable to juvenile offender proceedings. In re Mary P., 237 Kan. 456, 458, 701 P.2d 681 (1985).

4. When provisions hereunder met, along with requirement of counsel, essentials of due process satisfied even though juvenile fails to appear. State v. Muhammad, 237 Kan. 850, 856, 703 P.2d 835 (1985).

5. Cited; where defendant had no juvenile offender status because of prior adjudications (K.S.A. 38-1602(b)(3)), court lacked jurisdiction under code. State v. Lowe, 238 Kan. 755, 715 P.2d 404 (1986); R'ved, Lowe v. State, 242 Kan. 64, 744 P.2d 856 (1987).

6. Eight factors in determining whether juvenile should be prosecuted as adult stated and applied. State v. Meyers, 245 Kan. 471, 473, 781 P.2d 700 (1989).

7. Eight factors for consideration to try as an adult; prosecutorial delay in reporting juror misconduct examined. State v. Cady, 248 Kan. 743, 744, 811 P.2d 1143 (1991).

8. Factors in (e) may be given different weight and evidence of all factors not required. State v. Irvin, 16 Kan. App. 2d 214, 215, 217, 219, 821 P.2d 1019 (1991).

9. Evidence supporting determination to try juvenile as adult upheld; trial on C and D felonies, admission of confession, evidence of gang membership examined. State v. Hooks, 251 Kan. 755, 840 P.2d 483 (1992).

10. Failure to find one or more of factors considered to be adverse to juvenile does not preclude prosecution as adult. State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 117, 131, 843 P.2d 203 (1992).

11. No abuse of discretion by trial court in certifying defendant for prosecution as an adult; supported by substantial evidence. State v. Tran, 252 Kan. 494, 508, 847 P.2d 680 (1993).

12. Whether state may try juvenile prosecuted as adult on charges not previously raised in juvenile proceeding examined. State v. Randolph, 19 Kan. App. 2d 730, 731, 734, 738, 876 P.2d 177 (1994).

13. Trial court adequately considered and weighed factors in certifying defendant for prosecution as an adult. State v. Brown, 258 Kan. 374, 387, 904 P.2d 985 (1995).

14. Trial court considered all factors set out in subsection (e) in certifying defendant to be tried as adult. State v. McIntyre, 259 Kan. 488, 489, 497, 912 P.2d 156 (1996).

15. Substantial evidence existed to certify juvenile to be prosecuted as an adult. State v. Kaiser, 260 Kan. 235, 252, 261, 918 P.2d 629 (1996).

16. Trial court's decision to allow prosecution of minor as adult supported by substantial evidence. State v. Vargas, 260 Kan. 791, 799, 926 P.2d 223 (1996).

17. Certification as adult supported by substantial evidence; insufficiency of evidence pertaining to factors in subsection (e) not determinative. State v. Claiborne, 262 Kan. 416, 420, 940 P.2d 27 (1997).

18. Motion to certify 17-year old hereunder denied; on refiling K.S.A. 38-1602(b)(3) applied notwithstanding no disposition made on second offense. State v. Fultz, 24 Kan. App. 2d 242, 943 P.2d 938 (1997).

19. Juvenile under 14 must have opportunity to consult with attorney or parent before waiving Miranda rights or statements are inadmissible. In re B.M.B., 264 Kan. 417, 432, 955 P.2d 1302 (1998).

20. Trial court denial of motion to try juvenile as an adult supported by substantial evidence. In re J.D.J., 266 Kan. 211, 217, 220, 967 P.2d 751 (1998).

21. Under facts, juvenile who pled no contest as an adult is not entitled to sentencing under juvenile code. Melton v. State, 25 Kan. App. 2d 641, 642, 967 P.2d 356 (1998).

22. Substantial evidence existed to authorize prosecution as adult under (f) notwithstanding judge's failure to mention statutory factors of (e). State v. Avalos, 266 Kan. 517, 519, 521, 974 P.2d 97 (1999).

23. In determining whether to certify a juvenile as an adult, court not required to give equal weight to factors in subsection (e). State v. Valdez, 266 Kan. 774, 783, 977 P.2d 242 (1999).

24. Sufficient evidence for court to conclude defendant should be tried as an adult. State v. Stephens, 266 Kan. 886, 892, 975 P.2d 801 (1999).

25. No error in prosecuting 14 year old defendant as adult for rape but upon conviction of lesser included offense of attempted rape he is to be sentenced as a juvenile offender. State v. Perez, 267 Kan. 543, 546, 987 P.2d 1055 (1999).

26. Respondent is deemed adjudicated as a juvenile offender when conviction is affirmed but order authorizing prosecution as an adult is reversed. State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 244, 993 P.2d 1213 (1999).

27. In extended juvenile prosecution, court not required to consider factors under subsection (b) if respondent stipulates presumption applies and respondent cannot overcome presumption. In re S.M.D., 26 Kan. App. 2d 165, 169, 980 P.2d 1028 (1999).

28. Failure of district court to adopt local rules for extended juvenile proceedings not reversible error absent showing of prejudice by absence of such rules. In re S.M.D., 26 Kan. App. 2d 165, 170, 980 P.2d 1028 (1999).

29. In hearing to determine whether juvenile is to be tried as an adult, juvenile may refuse court-ordered psychological examination; where juvenile consents, no miranda warning required provided information obtained not introduced at trial or used for sentencing. State v. Davis, 268 Kan. 661, 998 P.2d 1127 (2000).

30. Stipulation to facts contained in state's motion to prosecute as adult constituted a rough approximation of factors to be considered by court. State v. Luna, 28 Kan. App. 2d 148, 12 P.3d 911 (2000).

31. Factors in section concerning certification of juvenile to be tried as adult must be considered, but no requirement court mention factors used or that evidence on every factor be presented. State v. Medrano, 271 Kan. 504, 23 P.3d 836 (2001).

32. Sufficient evidence to support court's determination defendant should be tried as adult; issue of waiver of jury trial not before appellate courts as never raised at trial. State v. Luna, 271 Kan. 573, 23 P.3d 883 (2001).

33. No constitutional violations for prosecuting minor as adult. State v. Coleman, 271 Kan. 733, 26 P.3d 613 (2001).

34. Presumption in K.S.A. 38-1636(a)(2) does not violate due process rights of juvenile. State v. Jones, 273 Kan. 756, 47 P.3d 783 (2002).

35. Court's certification of defendant for trial as adult affirmed. State v. Hartpence, 30 Kan. App. 2d 486, 42 P.3d 1197 (2002).

36. Failure to advise defendant of specifics of section does not bring determination to prosecute defendant as adult within requirement of Apprendi. State v. Williams, 277 Kan. 338, 85 P.3d 697 (2004).

37. Certification proceedings of juveniles to be tried as adults outside dictates of Apprendi. State v. Mays, 277 Kan. 359, 85 P.3d 1208 (2004).

38. Conviction of at least one qualifying felony certifying juvenile as an adult will keep entire case in adult court. State v. Flores, 283 Kan. 380, 387, 153 P.3d 506 (2007).

39. When one parent appears at adult certification hearing no reversible error for failure to serve other parent; exceptions. State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418, 426, 427, 431, 172 P.3d 1165 (2007).

40. Cited in holding adult convictions reversed for failure to follow juvenile code; no district court jurisdiction. State v. Breedlove, 285 Kan. 1006, 1010, 1014, 179 P.3d 1115 (2008).

41. Cited in constitutional challenge to certification as an adult; no constitutional violation found. State v. Tyler, 286 Kan. 1087, 1097, 191 P.3d 306 (2008).

42. No appellate jurisdiction to consider the issues on judicial determination to waive juvenile jurisdiction despite the district court's failure to inform a juvenile of the items in K.S.A. 38-1636 (c)(2). State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009).

43. The defendant was properly certified as an adult; the district court had jurisdiction and the sentence was lawful. Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573, 314 P.3d 876 (2013).