## Facts

- Kristy Maddox, a juvenile, was charged in circuit court with criminal mischief after allegedly throwing a glass soda bottle from a moving truck at another motorist’s car.
- The incident occurred less than four months before Maddox’s eighteenth birthday; she had turned eighteen by the time of the transfer hearing.
- The complainant testified that a truck tailgated her vehicle, pulled alongside repeatedly, yelled obscenities, and refused to pass even when she slowed significantly.
- Maddox allegedly leaned out of the truck window and threw the bottle, denting the hood and cracking the windshield of the complainant’s car.
- Maddox’s mother testified that Maddox lived at home, helped around the house, was pursuing a GED, and planned to attend college; she also acknowledged a prior family disturbance that required police involvement.
- The circuit court denied Maddox’s motion to transfer to juvenile court, characterizing the conduct as serious and violent and finding no proof of rehabilitation prospects.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court clearly erred in denying transfer to juvenile court under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318.
2. Whether the circuit court could treat the charged property offense as involving “violence” based on the manner in which it was committed.
3. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently established Maddox’s prospects for rehabilitation in the juvenile system.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the order denying transfer to juvenile court.
- The court held the circuit court’s retention of adult jurisdiction was not clearly erroneous under the statutory factors and the clear-and-convincing evidence standard.
- The court agreed that throwing a glass bottle at an occupied vehicle on a public roadway supported findings of seriousness and violence despite the property-crime label.
- The court held the rehabilitation evidence was general and did not require transfer in light of the offense’s dangerous nature and Maddox’s age.

## Legal Principles

- In juvenile-transfer determinations under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318, the court considers, among other factors, (1) seriousness and whether violence was employed, (2) repetitive pattern of adjudicated offenses, and (3) history, maturity, character traits, and prospects for rehabilitation.
- “Violence” for transfer purposes may be shown by the dangerous manner of committing an offense and the risk of physical harm, even if the charged offense is typically categorized as a property crime and no injury occurs.
- The circuit court need not assign equal weight to each statutory factor, and the State is not required to present proof on every factor.
- Appellate review is for clear error; the transfer ruling is upheld if supported by clear and convincing evidence.
- A juvenile seeking transfer bears the burden to show that transfer is warranted; generalized background testimony may be insufficient to establish meaningful rehabilitation prospects.

## Conclusion

The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld adult-court jurisdiction because the bottle-throwing incident created a substantial risk to safety, supporting findings of seriousness and violence, and because Maddox’s generalized evidence of rehabilitation prospects and her proximity to adulthood did not make the circuit court’s denial of transfer clearly erroneous.


Maddox v. State, 326 Ark. 515, 931 S.W.2d 438 (Ark. 1996)