## Facts

- David E. Verhagen, a juvenile confined in a Wisconsin secure juvenile correctional facility, committed a violent battery against a youth counselor at the institution.
- Wisconsin law placed certain juveniles who commit specified offenses while confined in a secure juvenile facility within the exclusive original jurisdiction of adult criminal court.
- After a probable-cause finding at the preliminary hearing, Wis. Stat. § 970.032(2) permits a “reverse waiver” hearing where the adult court decides whether to retain adult jurisdiction or waive the case back to juvenile court if statutory criteria are met.
- The statute directed the adult court to retain jurisdiction unless it found the specified criteria satisfied, but did not state which party bears the burden of proof.
- The circuit court applied a “shared allocation” of the burden: the State had to make a prima facie showing supporting retention, and Verhagen had to show transfer to juvenile court was warranted; the court then retained adult jurisdiction.
- Verhagen sought interlocutory review, challenging (1) the statutory scheme on equal-protection grounds and (2) the burden allocation used at the reverse-waiver hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory scheme placing certain juveniles initially in adult court, subject to reverse waiver, violates equal protection.
2. In a reverse-waiver proceeding under Wis. Stat. § 970.032(2), which party bears the burden of proof on the statutory criteria for transfer from adult court to juvenile court?

## Decision

- The court of appeals declined to revisit the equal-protection challenge, concluding it was controlled by existing precedent rejecting similar arguments.
- The court held that, in a reverse-waiver hearing under Wis. Stat. § 970.032(2), the juvenile defendant bears the burden of proof on the statutory criteria for transfer to juvenile court.
- The circuit court erred by using a “shared allocation” of the burden of proof between the State and the juvenile.
- The appellate court reversed the burden-allocation ruling and remanded for further proceedings consistent with placing the burden entirely on the juvenile.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute is silent on burden of proof and ambiguous, courts determine the burden by examining statutory text, structure, context, and purpose.
- Under Wis. Stat. § 970.032(2), adult-court jurisdiction is the default once probable cause is found; transfer back to juvenile court is an exception.
- The party seeking to depart from the statutorily mandated default forum bears the burden to prove the statutory conditions for the exception.
- A reverse-waiver hearing may not employ a hybrid “shared burden” absent statutory support; the burden rests fully on the juvenile seeking transfer.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that reverse waiver under Wis. Stat. § 970.032(2) places the burden on the juvenile to prove eligibility for transfer back to juvenile court, rejected a shared-burden approach, and remanded for reconsideration under the correct allocation.


State v. Verhagen, 542 N.W.2d 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995)