## Facts

- The body of Ricky Alan McGuire, missing since November 1977, was found in April 1978 in a remote area; physical evidence suggested a shotgun killing.
- The state filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging Dahl (17 at the time of the alleged homicide; 18 when charged) committed first-degree murder and had admitted shooting McGuire and later planned to conceal the body.
- The petition included allegations that witnesses feared retaliation if Dahl were released, that Dahl used marijuana, and that he had written a note saying certain people should be “terminated.”
- Dahl had a stable family background, satisfactory school performance, sports involvement, steady employment, and minimal school discipline.
- Aside from a reckless-driving matter, Dahl had no significant delinquency record.
- The state sought an order referring (certifying) Dahl for adult prosecution under Minn. Stat. § 260.125.

## Issues

1. Whether the state proved by clear and convincing evidence under Minn. Stat. § 260.125 that Dahl was not amenable to juvenile treatment before juvenile jurisdiction ended or that public safety required adult prosecution.
2. Whether the seriousness of the charged offense and Dahl’s age near the end of juvenile jurisdiction, without more, can justify referral.
3. Whether a referral order may rest largely on unsubstantiated allegations and generalized fears without psychological/psychiatric evidence or a record showing entrenched delinquency.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court vacated the referral order and remanded for further proceedings in juvenile court.
- The court held the evidence did not satisfy the statutory clear-and-convincing standard for either non-amenability to treatment or public-safety necessity.
- The court rejected referral grounded primarily on the seriousness of the offense and Dahl’s proximity to the age limit of juvenile jurisdiction.
- The court faulted the lack of psychological/psychiatric evaluation and the reliance on allegations not adequately substantiated at the hearing.
- The court warned against overprediction of dangerousness unsupported by an evidentiary record.

## Legal Principles

- Under Minn. Stat. § 260.125, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile is not suitable for treatment/rehabilitation within the juvenile system before jurisdiction ends or that public safety requires adult prosecution.
- The seriousness of the alleged offense and the juvenile’s age are relevant but are not, standing alone, sufficient to justify referral.
- Referral determinations must rest on an evidentiary showing tied to amenability and dangerousness; generalized fears, speculation, or unsubstantiated allegations are inadequate.
- Where amenability and dangerousness are central and the juvenile lacks a significant prior record, psychological or psychiatric information may be necessary to support the required findings.

## Conclusion

The court treated juvenile referral as an exception requiring a strong evidentiary basis and held that the state failed to meet its clear-and-convincing burden; the adult-prosecution reference was vacated and the matter returned to juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with that standard.


In re Welfare of Dahl, 278 N.W.2d 316 (Minn. 1979)