## Facts

- In March and June 1997, D.M.D., Jr., age 14, allegedly digitally and penilely penetrated an 8-year-old girl while babysitting her and her siblings.
- The state filed a delinquency petition charging two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342.
- The prosecutor moved to designate the matter an Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile (EJJ) prosecution under Minn. Stat. § 260.126, subd. 2 (1998), and the court ordered an EJJ study and psychological evaluation.
- State experts opined D.M.D. posed a high risk of reoffending, refused to admit the conduct, and likely could not complete sex-offender treatment by age 19 without the additional time available under EJJ.
- The defense expert opined treatment could be completed by age 19, but the juvenile court discounted the opinion as dependent on an assumption that D.M.D. would admit the conduct.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court found the statutory public-safety factors “split evenly” but still ordered EJJ designation.

## Issues

1. Whether Minn. Stat. § 260.126 (1998) requires nonoffense-related evidence of a juvenile’s dangerousness before a court may designate a proceeding as an EJJ prosecution on public-safety grounds.
2. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in designating the prosecution as EJJ based on the record and the statutory public-safety factors.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the juvenile court’s EJJ designation.
- The court held nonoffense-related evidence of dangerousness is not required for EJJ designation on public-safety grounds.
- The court concluded the record supported the juvenile court’s public-safety determination, including the seriousness of the alleged offenses and expert risk and treatment testimony.

## Legal Principles

- An EJJ designation may be ordered if the prosecutor proves by clear and convincing evidence that designation would serve public safety. Minn. Stat. § 260.126, subd. 2(2) (1998).
- The public-safety inquiry is determined by weighing statutory factors, which may include the seriousness and circumstances of the charged offense, the child’s culpability and history, prior programming, and the adequacy of available juvenile programming or punishment.
- The statute does not require a separate showing of “dangerousness” unrelated to the charged offense; offense-related evidence may be sufficient to satisfy the public-safety standard.
- A juvenile court may credit expert testimony regarding risk of reoffense and treatment needs, and may discount opinions resting on assumptions the court finds unsupported by the record.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld an EJJ designation where the prosecutor met the clear-and-convincing public-safety standard using evidence tied to the charged sexual offenses and expert testimony on reoffense risk and treatment timelines, rejecting any requirement of nonoffense-related dangerousness.


In re Welfare of D.M.D., Jr., 607 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 2000)