## Facts

- Jack Leroy Waterman II, a juvenile, had been adjudicated delinquent in 1971 for marijuana-related acts and was placed on probation to his parents.
- In July 1972, new juvenile petitions alleged marijuana possession and, in a separate petition, premeditated murder and armed robbery occurring shortly before his eighteenth birthday.
- The juvenile court had exclusive original jurisdiction and held a referral (waiver) hearing under K.S.A. 1972 Supp. 38-808(b) to determine whether to waive jurisdiction for adult prosecution.
- Juvenile court staff testified Waterman had emotional and psychiatric problems and opined he was not amenable to juvenile treatment.
- The juvenile judge continued the hearing and ordered additional psychiatric evaluation at Larned State Hospital; later evidence remained mixed or inconclusive.
- The juvenile court ultimately refused to waive jurisdiction and retained the matter in juvenile court.
- The state attempted to appeal; the district court conducted a de novo hearing and sustained the refusal to waive jurisdiction.
- The state then appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court; Waterman filed a cross-appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the Kansas Juvenile Code authorized the state to appeal from a juvenile court order refusing to waive jurisdiction and retaining a juvenile case for juvenile proceedings.
2. If the state’s appeal was unauthorized, whether an appellate court could entertain the juvenile’s cross-appeal.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court dismissed the state’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- The court held the juvenile code did not grant the state a statutory right to appeal from an order refusing waiver of juvenile jurisdiction.
- Because the state’s appeal was jurisdictionally defective, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear it de novo.
- The court also dismissed Waterman’s cross-appeal because a cross-appeal could not proceed without a valid main appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A right of appeal exists only when conferred by statute; courts may not infer appellate jurisdiction from silence.
- Statutes granting appellate rights are strictly construed.
- The Kansas Juvenile Code was treated as a comprehensive scheme that provided specific appellate rights; where it expressly allowed appeals by or on behalf of the child but did not provide for a state appeal, the omission was treated as intentional.
- Jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time and must be noticed by the court even if not raised by the parties.
- A cross-appeal is dependent on a properly perfected appeal; absent a valid appeal, the cross-appeal must be dismissed.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Kansas Juvenile Code did not authorize the state to appeal a juvenile court’s refusal to waive jurisdiction, requiring dismissal of both the state’s appeal and the juvenile’s cross-appeal and leaving intact the orders retaining juvenile jurisdiction.


In re Waterman, 212 Kan. 826, 512 P.2d 466 (Kan. 1973)