transfer hearing in Nebraska

2018The defendant's evidence at the transfer hearing in Hunt included testimony from the defendant's juvenile probation officer, who claimed that the defendant had been "respectful, patient, open, and honest with her." 299 Neb. at 577 , 909 N.W.2d at 368 .

2018As a result, the State already was seeking to revoke Hunt’s place- ment when, on March 16, 2016, Hunt cut off his electronic monitor a second time and allegedly committed the current felony offenses. - 578 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HUNT Cite as 299 Neb. 573 Strong testified that although Hunt had been accepted to the Arizona group home facility before his current charges, he had no pending application at the time of the transfer hearing, and there was no guarantee Hunt would be accepted into the Arizona facility again.

2026The U.S. Supreme Court explained that juvenile courts, while given considerable latitude, should exercise “procedural regularity sufficient in the particular circumstances to satisfy the basic requirements of due process and fairness.” 31 And “there is no place in our system of law for reaching a result of such tremendous consequences without ceremony—without hearing, without effective assistance of counsel, without a statement of reasons.” 32 Although the State acts as parens patriae, rather than pros- ecuting attorney and judge, “the admonition to function in a ‘parental’ relationship,” said

2026The U.S. Supreme Court explained that juvenile courts, while given considerable latitude, should exercise “procedural regularity sufficient in the particular circumstances to satisfy the basic requirements of due process and fairness.” 31 And “there is no place in our system of law for reaching a result of such tremendous consequences without ceremony—without hearing, without effective assistance of counsel, without a statement of reasons.” 32 Although the State acts as parens patriae, rather than pros- ecuting attorney and judge, “the admonition to function in a ‘parental’ relationship,” said

2025With regard to the type of treat- ment to which Jeremiah would most likely be amenable, the court found that there was “a significant issue as to whether [Jeremiah] can successfully complete appropriate 16 Backhaus v. Backhaus, supra note 15 . 17 See State v. Nevels, 235 Neb. 39 , 453 N.W.2d 579 (1990). 18 In re Interest of T.W., 314 Neb. 475 , 991 N.W.2d 280 (2023). - 146 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2025With regard to the type of treat- ment to which Jeremiah would most likely be amenable, the court found that there was “a significant issue as to whether [Jeremiah] can successfully complete appropriate 16 Backhaus v. Backhaus, supra note 15 . 17 See State v. Nevels, 235 Neb. 39 , 453 N.W.2d 579 (1990). 18 In re Interest of T.W., 314 Neb. 475 , 991 N.W.2d 280 (2023). - 146 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2025With regard to the type of treat- ment to which Jeremiah would most likely be amenable, the court found that there was “a significant issue as to whether [Jeremiah] can successfully complete appropriate 16 Backhaus v. Backhaus, supra note 15 . 17 See State v. Nevels, 235 Neb. 39 , 453 N.W.2d 579 (1990). 18 In re Interest of T.W., 314 Neb. 475 , 991 N.W.2d 280 (2023). - 146 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2025With regard to the type of treat- ment to which Jeremiah would most likely be amenable, the court found that there was “a significant issue as to whether [Jeremiah] can successfully complete appropriate 16 Backhaus v. Backhaus, supra note 15 . 17 See State v. Nevels, 235 Neb. 39 , 453 N.W.2d 579 (1990). 18 In re Interest of T.W., 314 Neb. 475 , 991 N.W.2d 280 (2023). - 146 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2025State v. Esai P., 28 Neb.

2000Rather, the sole purpose of the transfer hearing ... is to determine ‘whether best interests of the child and of society would be served by the retention of the juvenile court authority over him or whether the juvenile, under all the circumstances, should be transferred to be tried as an adult.’. . .” (Quoting State v. Piche, 74 Wash. 2d 9 , 442 P.2d 632 (1968).) In other words, a transfer hearing is a hearing at which the district court considers only “ ‘the nature of the alleged offense,’ not the juvenile’s guilt or innocence of the charged offense.” U.S. v. Parker, 956 F.2d 169, 171 (8th Ci

2000Rather, the sole purpose of the transfer hearing ... is to determine ‘whether best interests of the child and of society would be served by the retention of the juvenile court authority over him or whether the juvenile, under all the circumstances, should be transferred to be tried as an adult.’. . .” (Quoting State v. Piche, 74 Wash. 2d 9 , 442 P.2d 632 (1968).) In other words, a transfer hearing is a hearing at which the district court considers only “ ‘the nature of the alleged offense,’ not the juvenile’s guilt or innocence of the charged offense.” U.S. v. Parker, 956 F.2d 169, 171 (8th Ci

1983The bill of exceptions in Koliopoulos I, received in evidence in this case, establishes that although Pflasterer’s evidence therein was directed toward her father’s mental and physical condition at the relevant times, Koliopoulos’ evidence bore on the consideration issue as well, at least to the extent of touching upon the financial condition of Ted’s Enterprises, Inc., and the inducements proffered by Ganaros to Koliopoulos at certain relevant times in order to persuade Koliopoulos to return to the business operated by Ted’s Enterprises, Inc. However, as will be seen by the body of case law d

1983The bill of exceptions in Koliopoulos I, received in evidence in this case, establishes that although Pflasterer’s evidence therein was directed toward her father’s mental and physical condition at the relevant times, Koliopoulos’ evidence bore on the consideration issue as well, at least to the extent of touching upon the financial condition of Ted’s Enterprises, Inc., and the inducements proffered by Ganaros to Koliopoulos at certain relevant times in order to persuade Koliopoulos to return to the business operated by Ted’s Enterprises, Inc. However, as will be seen by the body of case law d