certification hearing in Missouri

2023A certification hearing merely leads to a transfer of the case to allow for adjudication in a different court; thus “the focus in a certification proceeding is on the juvenile, not the conduct alleged in the petition.” T.D.S., 643 S.W.3d at 520. 8 Although required by § 211.071 to consider the nature of the crimes charged in making a certification decision, the juvenile court does not consider “whether the juvenile did (or did not) commit them.” Nathan, 404 S.W.3d at 260, 261 (holding that an adjudication of the underlying criminal allegations would result in double jeopardy and a denial of du

2023State v. Tate, 637 S.W.2d 67 [, 71] (Mo. App. E.D. 1982) [overruled on other grounds, State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Mo. banc 1997)].” Appellant argues this Court should heed the certification hearing guidance set forth by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Nathan, in that the juvenile court “is not required to find that these allegations are true, nor does it ‘assume’ they are true.” 404 S.W.3d 253, 260 (Mo. banc 2013).

2023Therefore, evidentiary rules do not apply to a certification proceeding; “[c]ertification proceedings do not have to ‘conform with all of the requirements of a criminal trial or even of the usual administrative hearing’ as long as they ‘measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.’” Id. at 260 (quoting Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 562 (1966)).

2021Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 560 (1966).

2023Section 211.071.6 specifically directs the juvenile court to assess “all available information relevant to the criteria.” “Prior referrals, even those which were dismissed, are 15 proper subjects of the juvenile court’s certification inquiry.” T.D.S., 643 S.W.3d at 525 (citing Richardson v. State, 555 S.W.2d 83, 87 (Mo. App. W.D. 1977)).

2021Richardson v. State, 555 S.W.2d 83, 87 (Mo. App. W.D. 1977). 3.

2023Reversal is not warranted “based merely on the existence of an erroneous ruling.” Frawley v. Frawley, 597 S.W.3d 742 , 749 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020). “[I]nstead, Rule 84.13(b) specifies that ‘[n]o appellate court shall reverse any judgment unless it finds that error was committed by the trial court against the appellant materially affecting the merits of the action.’” Id. at 749-50 (emphasis in original).9 9 In fact, in a bench-tried case, we assume the lower court did not rely on erroneously admitted evidence; when conducting non-jury proceedings, “judges are given great latitude in the admission

2023State v. Thomas, 70 S.W.3d 496, 504 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). 3 We use the term “juvenile court,” even though the juvenile division is not a separate court but is instead a division of the circuit court (here, the Family Court Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County), because the term “juvenile court” is defined in § 211.021(3) to include divisions of the circuit court of the county “while hearing juvenile cases assigned to them.” 2 On December 20, 2021, the certification hearing was held.

2023State v. Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d 679, 697 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (quoting In re Interest of A.D.R., 603 S.W.2d 575, 580-81 (Mo. banc 1980)).

2023State v. Tate, 637 S.W.2d 67 [, 71] (Mo. App. E.D. 1982) [overruled on other grounds, State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Mo. banc 1997)].” Appellant argues this Court should heed the certification hearing guidance set forth by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Nathan, in that the juvenile court “is not required to find that these allegations are true, nor does it ‘assume’ they are true.” 404 S.W.3d 253, 260 (Mo. banc 2013).

2023State v. Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d 679, 697 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (quoting In re Interest of A.D.R., 603 S.W.2d 575, 580-81 (Mo. banc 1980)).

2021The State asks us to imply an allowance of hearsay by construing section 211.071, given section 211.068, which allows a prosecutor to testify at a certification hearing as to the likelihood of prosecution under general law, because “the Juvenile Code is a complete law, and each section is to be read and construed in relation to the others.” State v. Williams, 473 S.W.2d 382, 383 (Mo. 1971).

2021Section 211.071.4; See also D.V., 495 S.W.2d at 128 . (“This shield can be pierced.”).

2021See Nathan, 404 S.W.3d at 259 ; see also In re L.T., 989 S.W.2d 673, 676 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (holding termination of parental rights proceedings involve adjudication).

2021See, e.g., State v. Miller, 372 S.W.3d 455, 466 (Mo. banc 2012).

2019Similarly, this Court, in finding that the failure to use a DHSS approved form did not render breath test results inadmissible, explained that “[a] claim that the test results are invalid avails only where there is some evidence of a malfunction despite adherence to correct procedure in the administration of the test.” Young v. Dir. of Revenue, 835 S.W.2d 332, 333 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); see also Bautista v. Dir. of Revenue, 843 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); Dillon v. Dir. of Revenue, 999 S.W.2d 319 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999).10 9 The requirement that the officer performing the breath test complete t

2019Similarly, this Court, in finding that the failure to use a DHSS approved form did not render breath test results inadmissible, explained that “[a] claim that the test results are invalid avails only where there is some evidence of a malfunction despite adherence to correct procedure in the administration of the test.” Young v. Dir. of Revenue, 835 S.W.2d 332, 333 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); see also Bautista v. Dir. of Revenue, 843 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); Dillon v. Dir. of Revenue, 999 S.W.2d 319 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999).10 9 The requirement that the officer performing the breath test complete t

2019See 19 CSR 25-30.011(5)(A). 10 Deviation from the submission of the proper form relating to the maintenance of the machine used to conduct a breath test has also been found not fatal to the admissibility of the breath test results: “[W]e reject [the driver’s] argument that ‘absolute and literal compliance’ is required in regard to regulations which do not deal with issues relating to the reliability or performance of the maintenance tests themselves.” Potts, 22 S.W.3d at 232 ; see also, Hearne v. Dir. of Revenue, 559 S.W.3d 66, 70 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (“The trial court erred in excluding from

2013Section 168.104(7) defines “teacher” as “any employee of a school district ... regularly required to be certified under laws relating to the certification of teachers ... including certified teachers who teach at the prekindergarten level ... within a prekindergarten program in which no fees are charged to parents or guardians.” “[T]he source of the certification requirement must be the statute, specifically sections 168.011, and 168.081, and not merely a requirement of the school board or employment contract.” Sealey v. Bd. of Educ., 14 S.W.3d 597, 599 (Mo.App.