K.S.A. » Chapter 38
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 38-808 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

38-808.

History: L. 1957, ch. 256, § 8; L. 1965, ch. 278, § 3; L. 1969, ch. 224, § 1; L. 1972, ch. 166, § 1; L. 1975, ch. 233, § 1; L. 1976, ch. 207, § 8; Repealed, L. 1982, ch. 182, § 150; January 1, 1983.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. 1965 act changed substantive law and is prospective in application. State v. Augustine, 197 Kan. 207, 416 P.2d 281.

2. Act raising jurisdictional age limit for juveniles not retroactive in application. State v. Coutcher, 198 Kan. 282, 285, 424 P.2d 865.

3. Appeal from waiver order must be heard de novo. In re Templeton, 202 Kan. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 447 P.2d 158.

4. Order waiving exclusive original jurisdiction hereunder final order; appealable under K.S.A. 38-834. In re Templeton, 202 Kan. 89, 90, 92, 94, 447 P.2d 158.

5. To review waiver order, record must show required jurisdictional findings. In re Templeton, 202 Kan. 89, 90, 92, 94, 96, 447 P.2d 158.

6. Substantial evidence before district court to support findings required by section; proceedings upheld. In re Templeton, 202 Kan. 89, 90, 92, 94, 96, 447 P.2d 158.

7. Provisions of section provide clear standards and guidelines to satisfy due process and equal protection requirements. In re Templeton, 202 Kan. 89, 90, 92, 94, 96, 447 P.2d 158.

8. Appeal from waiver order must be heard and disposed of de novo. In re Long, 202 Kan. 216, 217, 218, 448 P.2d 25.

9. No requirement that proof of alleged offenses be made at hearing to determine whether juvenile court should relinquish jurisdiction. In re Stephenson & Hudson, 204 Kan. 80, 82, 460 P.2d 442.

10. Subsection (b) apparently not complied with; no substantial evidence for finding boys not amenable; reversed and remanded. In re Patterson, Payne and Dyer, 210 Kan. 245, 247, 250, 499 P.2d 1131.

11. State has no right of appeal from order of juvenile court declining to waive its original jurisdiction. In re Waterman, 212 Kan. 826, 827, 830, 512 P.2d 466.

12. Findings forming jurisdictional basis for juvenile court's waiver cannot be collaterally attacked; recourse is appeal to district court. State v. Shepherd, 213 Kan. 498, 503, 504, 505, 516 P.2d 945.

13. Finding of nonamenability based on inadmissible hearsay; K.S.A. 60-460 applicable to all juvenile proceedings; reversed. In re Harris, 218 Kan. 625, 626, 544 P.2d 1403.

14. Standards as to amenability applied in determining sixteen-year-old not amenable to program available through juvenile court; subject to prosecution as adult. State v. Green, 218 Kan. 438, 439, 443, 445, 544 P.2d 356.

15. Applied in determining K.S.A. 21-3611 not unconstitutional denial of equal protection of laws. State v. Sherk, 217 Kan. 726, 729, 731, 538 P.2d 1399.

16. Allegations of improper certification as adult in juvenile court proceeding insufficient to sustain motion for relief. Decker v. State, 219 Kan. 416, 417, 548 P.2d 489.

17. Subsection (b) held constitutional; admission of confession proper; conviction of first degree murder upheld. State v. Young, 220 Kan. 541, 542, 544, 545, 552 P.2d 905.

18. Defendant properly certified to stand trial as adult; convictions of crimes affirmed. State v. Lewis, 220 Kan. 791, 792, 556 P.2d 888.

19. Finding of district court that defendant not amenable to care through facilities of juvenile court supported by substantial competent evidence. In re Ferris, 222 Kan. 104, 110, 111, 112, 114, 563 P.2d 1046.

20. Insufficient substantial evidence for finding juvenile was not fit person to be dealt with under code; proceedings remanded. In re White, 224 Kan. 717, 585 P.2d 1046.

21. Conviction as adult reversed; failure to receive fair treatment and fair trial. State v. Gammill, 2 Kan. App. 2d 627, 585 P.2d 1074.

22. Referred to in determining question of delinquency adjudication in lower court not moot. State v. Bolden, 2 Kan. App. 2d 470, 472, 581 P.2d 1195.

23. Confession must be voluntary to be admissible in waiver proceeding; under circumstances, no requirement of specific warning that criminal prosecution may result; not all factors in subsection (b) must be given equal weight. In re Edwards, 227 Kan. 723, 729, 608 P.2d 1006.

24. A determination by a district court in one county that a juvenile should be tried under the juvenile code, does not preclude a district court in another county from certifying the juvenile as an adult for a different offense. In re Johnson, 3 Kan. App. 2d 362, 363, 365, 595 P.2d 731.

25. Decision to waive juvenile jurisdiction must be supported by substantial evidence. In re White, 227 Kan. 881, 882, 883, 885, 886, 889, 890, 610 P.2d 1114.

26. The portion of subsection (a) of K.S.A. 38-817 relative to date for hearing is directory, not mandatory. In re Flournoy, 5 Kan. App. 2d 220, 221, 222, 613 P.2d 970.

27. Seven factors in statute discussed in detail; certification as adult upheld. In re Johnson, 5 Kan. App. 2d 420, 617 P.2d 1273.

28. Control of juvenile offenders in custody of social and rehabilitation services is legislative, not judicial, concern. In re Hobson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 873, 874, 636 P.2d 198 (1981).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1966–1987 · leading case: In the Interest of Ferris, 563 P.2d 1046 (Kan. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of Ferris, 563 P.2d 1046 (Kan. 1977). · cites it 8× “: This is an appeal from the trial court’s order declaring Michael Ferris, age seventeen, not amenable to the care, treatment and training program available through the facilities of the juvenile court (K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 38-808 [b] [now K.S.A. 1976 Supp.”
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971). · cites it 2× “2338-1, § 13 (b) (Supp. 1970); W. Va. Code Ann.”
State v. Greenlee, 620 P.2d 1132 (Kan. 1980). “21-4607 establishes factors for imposing fines; K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-808 mandates consideration of certain factors in certifying a juvenile for trial as an adult and there are many more.”
Dillard v. State, 623 P.2d 1294 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 2× “This I believe to be commendable and is further reason for pipelining juvenile court waiver decisions directly into the Supreme Court.”
Edwards v. State, 608 P.2d 1006 (Kan. 1980). “: This is a juvenile waiver proceeding, brought under K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-808, to determine whether Roy D.”
State v. Gammill, 585 P.2d 1074 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). “On February 8, 1977, the defendant was ordered by the district court to be tried as an adult under authority of K.S.A. 38-808. Subsequent thereto, a *628 complaint and information were filed charging the defendant with violations of K.”
State Ex Rel. Londerholm v. Owens, 416 P.2d 259 (Kan. 1966). “Section 3 provides: *216 "Existing K.S.A. 38-808 is hereby amended to read as follows: 38-808.”
State v. Mayfield, 738 P.2d 861 (Kan. 1987). “) K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 38-808 provided a procedure where certain individuals charged under the juvenile code could be prosecuted as an adult.”
In Re the Interest of White, 585 P.2d 1046 (Kan. 1978). “: This is an appeal from an order of the Sedgwick County District Court finding Charlotte Ann White, age seventeen, was not a fit and proper person to be dealt with under the Kansas Juvenile Code and directing that she should be tried for first degree murder as an adult under…”
In the Interest of White, 610 P.2d 1114 (Kan. 1980). “: This is an appeal by Charlotte Ann White from an order of the juvenile department of the Sedgwick County District Court (juvenile court or trial court) waiving its jurisdiction and referring her to stand trial as an adult pursuant to K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-808. This is the…”
United States v. Mayfield, 628 F. Supp. 1515 (D. Kan. 1986). “K.S.A. 38-808(b). The defendant moves for an order preventing the government from utilizing evidence of the 1978 “conviction” for purposes of the federal firearms charges.”
In the Interest of Johnson, 617 P.2d 1273 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “On the basis of this evidence the trial court spoke to each of seven statutory factors: “THE COURT: I’m going to cover each of the points mentioned in KSA 38-808 in making the determination as to whether the juvenile is a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the Kansas…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 38-808(b) — 3 cases
Dillard v. State, 623 P.2d 1294 (Idaho 1981). “This I believe to be commendable and is further reason for pipelining juvenile court waiver decisions directly into the Supreme Court.”
United States v. Mayfield, 628 F. Supp. 1515 (D. Kan. 1986). “K.S.A. 38-808(b). The defendant moves for an order preventing the government from utilizing evidence of the 1978 “conviction” for purposes of the federal firearms charges.”
In re Hobson, 636 P.2d 198 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
— K.S.A. § 38-808(fc) — 1 case
In Re the Interest of White, 585 P.2d 1046 (Kan. 1978). “: This is an appeal from an order of the Sedgwick County District Court finding Charlotte Ann White, age seventeen, was not a fit and proper person to be dealt with under the Kansas Juvenile Code and directing that she should be tried for first degree murder as an adult under…”
— K.S.A. § 38-808(h) — 2 cases
In the Interest of Flournoy, 613 P.2d 970 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
In the Interest of Johnson, 617 P.2d 1273 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “On the basis of this evidence the trial court spoke to each of seven statutory factors: “THE COURT: I’m going to cover each of the points mentioned in KSA 38-808 in making the determination as to whether the juvenile is a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the Kansas…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.