## Facts

- G.M.C. (defendant) and “Mary” (a pseudonym) were both 16 years old when they attended a pajama party where guests consumed alcohol.
- Both minors became visibly intoxicated; Mary was slurring her words and stumbling.
- Mary and G.M.C. went to a darkened, closed-off area away from the group.
- A group of boys sprayed Mary’s bottom with Febreze and slapped it hard enough that hand marks remained the next day.
- G.M.C. had sexual intercourse with Mary, recorded it on his cell phone, and sent the video to friends.
- The clip showed G.M.C. penetrating Mary, her naked torso, and her head hanging down.
- G.M.C. sent an accompanying text stating, “When your first time having sex was rape.”
- The prosecutor described G.M.C.’s conduct as “sophisticated and predatory” and sought a waiver so the matter could be transferred from juvenile court to regular (adult) court for prosecution.
- The juvenile court denied the waiver request, reasoning in part that G.M.C. came from a “good family,” was doing well at an “excellent school,” and would likely attend a good college, and that adult prosecution would be unfair and carry life consequences that were too permanent.
- The State appealed the denial of the waiver motion.

## Issues

1. Did the juvenile court err by denying the State’s waiver motion based on considerations such as G.M.C.’s family background, school performance, and potential future prospects, rather than the statutory waiver criteria and record evidence?

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the juvenile court’s denial of the waiver motion.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion on the proper legal standard governing waiver decisions.

## Legal Principles

- Juvenile-waiver decisions must be made under the governing waiver statute and required factors; a court may not substitute a personal fairness assessment for the statutory test.
- A waiver ruling must rest on findings tied to the record and the legally relevant considerations, not on a juvenile’s socioeconomic advantages, perceived “good family” status, or anticipated educational opportunities.
- Appellate review focuses on whether the juvenile court applied the correct legal standard and reached a decision supported by the record; legal error in the waiver analysis warrants reversal and remand.
- When the State seeks waiver in a serious alleged offense, the waiver determination must address the nature of the alleged conduct and the statutory aims of waiver, rather than the court’s concern that adult-court consequences may be lasting.

## Conclusion

In *State in the Interest of G.M.C.*, the appellate court reviewed a juvenile court’s refusal to waive a 16-year-old into adult court after an alleged sexual assault that was recorded and distributed. Concluding that the waiver decision relied on improper considerations and did not apply the governing waiver framework as required, the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.


State in the Interest of G.M.C., 2019 WL 2486221 (2019)