 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
K.J.M. v. State4/30/1991
y, larceny and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. The State's expert witness testified that Appellant presented a fair to good prospect of rehabilitation only if he received the maximum benefit from the most intensive services offered. All the witnesses presented on this issue testified that there was no guarantee as to which services Appellant would actually receive or for what length of time.
In a certification proceeding, the State bears the responsibility for proving that the child is not amenable to rehabilitation through available juvenile services. K.C.H. v. State, 674 P.2d 551 (Okl.Cr. 1984). The evidence presented by the State met that high burden, thus we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it found against Appellant on the question of certification. There is no error presented here.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the trial court certifying Appellant to stand trial as an adult is AFFIRMED.
LUMPKIN, V.P.J., and BRETT and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
PARKS, J., concurs in result.
|