## Facts

- D.F.B., age 16, killed his parents and two younger siblings with an ax.
- Mental-health evidence indicated a long-standing depressive disorder and severe depression at the time of the killings.
- D.F.B. stated he killed his younger siblings to spare them future pain.
- In a reference (certification) proceeding, a court-appointed psychiatrist reported “serious reservations” about whether D.F.B. could be treated appropriately and effectively within the juvenile system before age 19 and recommended long-term treatment addressing aggression.
- A defense psychologist estimated successful treatment within roughly 2½ years but acknowledged that similar patients often fail treatment or relapse.
- Evidence suggested juvenile treatment programs for depression typically provide secure custody only initially, limiting long-term secure confinement options within juvenile placements.

## Issues

1. Whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence under Minn. Stat. § 260.125 (1986) that D.F.B. should be referred for adult prosecution because juvenile disposition until age 19 would be inconsistent with public safety due to non-amenability to timely treatment.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the result requiring reference for adult prosecution and substituted its reasoning for that of the court of appeals.
- Applying the certification framework from prior precedent, the Court held the district court erred in denying reference.
- The Court concluded that, given the offense severity, treatment uncertainty within the remaining juvenile jurisdiction, and limits on secure juvenile programming, retaining the matter in juvenile court was inconsistent with public safety.

## Legal Principles

- In a juvenile reference proceeding under Minn. Stat. § 260.125 (1986), the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that public safety requires adult prosecution because the juvenile is not amenable to treatment within the time available under juvenile jurisdiction.
- Courts evaluate reference by weighing the seriousness and circumstances of the offense, the juvenile’s characteristics and treatment prospects, and the adequacy and security of available juvenile dispositions.
- Extreme violence, coupled with expert concern about whether effective treatment can be completed and maintained before juvenile jurisdiction ends, and with limited long-term secure juvenile placement options, can satisfy the public-safety and non-amenability showing required for adult reference.

## Conclusion

The court required adult reference because the multiple homicides and the record on treatment prospects and secure placement supported a clear-and-convincing determination that juvenile jurisdiction ending at age 19 could not adequately protect public safety.


In re Welfare of D.F.B., 433 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. 1988)