Four months ago the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the trial court in Fall River County in making the decision that a Juvenile Offender should be committed to the Department of Corrections (DOC). People in Interest of J.A.D., 2026 SD 11, (S.D. Feb. 23 2026). In this case the Child was adjudicated delinquent on the charge of a terrorist threat involving officials and students in the Edgemont School District. (Student told teacher, ‘‘I’m going to shoot you and everybody in the school, and I’m going to kill myself.’’) The DOC commitment was imposed in a Juvenile Court proceeding, without a jury trial being afforded to the Child. In upholding this disposition, the SD Supreme Court quoted the trial court’s rationale, “[The Court] find[s] that due to the nature of the offense, this is a crime of violence, that [the Child] has had two unsuccessful treatments in the past. The [c]ourt finds that he’s a danger to the public and/or himself. And given the facts of this and the case study, the [c]ourt finds that there’s no other viable option; that the least restrictive alternative is placement with the [DOC].”
Currently there is a murder prosecution in Texas which is garnering public attention where 19-year-old Defendant Karmelo Anthony was 17 years old at the time he stabbed another 17 year old boy at a track meet. This case was filed as an adult prosecution, with protests being raised as to the improper use of juror dismissals (allegedly race-based) in the jury selection process. Having been found guilty of murder by the jury, Anthony is likely facing a lengthy prison sentence.
These cases represent exceptions to the rule that Children caught up in the criminal justice system should be given deferential treatment, thus providing a topic for this week’s column.
General Rule – Working with Children for Improvement
Generally speaking, Juvenile Courts are designed to focus on education and counseling with a strong emphasis on rehabilitation and treatment. Courts and Legislatures fundamentally believe that adolescents should be treated differently from adults based on their stage of development, decision-making capacity, and potential for rehabilitation. Young people are typically less mature, more susceptible to peer pressure, and more capable of change than adults.
Also, as stated by Joanna Lawler, one of the child advocates at the Pennington County Public Defender’s Office, “it’s also important to note that over-punishing kids has been shown to make it more [not less] likely a child will recidivate and wind up in the adult system. In general, it is better to use a lighter touch because that is what will make kids more likely to stay out of trouble. Most young people will age out of delinquency on their own.”
The SD Supreme Court has stated, “Juvenile courts are ‘theoretically engaged in determining the needs of the child and of society rather than adjudicating criminal conduct.’ To that end, ‘[t]he purpose of juvenile court proceedings is not to punish but rather to rehabilitate and correct a juvenile’s behavior so as to avoid future confrontations with the law.’” People ex rel. D.S., 2021 S.D. 63, ¶ 26.
Situations Warranting Treatment as An Adult Serious Felonies
Given the general rule that Children should be treated deferentially, there are recognized exceptions that warrant treatment as an adult. South Dakota’s law on this point is similar to the law in other states. The primary exception is when the young person is 16 or older and has committed conduct which is subject to prosecution for serious felonies, such as murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. The South Dakota legislature has declared that, “Any delinquent child sixteen years of age or older against whom Class A, Class B, Class C, Class 1, or Class 2 felony charges have been filed shall be tried in circuit court as an adult.” SDCL 26-11-3.1. Even though this statute appears to create an automatic presumption for prosecution as an adult, this same statute permits the Circuit Court to rule favorably on a request by the Child to transfer the matter to Juvenile Court. (“[T]he child may request a transfer hearing which shall be conducted pursuant to § 26-11-4 to determine if it is in the best interest of the public that the child be tried in circuit court as an adult.”)
Discretionary Treatment as an Adult
In addition to the presumptive treatment as an adult for serious felonies, the SD Legislature has also authorized transfer, on a discretionary basis, for other cases. SDCL 26-11-4. This decision is based upon a multi-factor approach that includes, inter alia, consideration of adequate protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense, the Child’s history and likelihood that rehabilitation is possible. State v. Milk, 519 N.W.2d 313 (S.D.1994) (transfer to adult court upheld where there was prior history of offenses and probation violations).
Might a Child Seek Transfer to Adult Court?
Although unlikely, it is possible that a youthful offender might request transfer to adult court. Such a transfer could be motivated by: 1) a desire to have the matter heard by a jury, not a Juvenile Court Judge; and/or 2) the likelihood (perhaps accompanied by a plea offer) for a favorable resolution in adult court.
Youthful Offenders present difficult questions for courts, legislators, and the public. While the juvenile justice system was created to emphasize rehabilitation rather than punishment, society also has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from serious and violent criminal conduct. The law is not perfect and the world continues to present challenging situations. But, it is noteworthy that those tasked with administering the law here in South Dakota continue to exert best efforts to find the proper balance between competing interests; in most cases, both children and society are best served when youthful offenders are in juvenile court.
Note: In regard to the preparation of this week’s column, the author would like to thank Meade County State’s Attorney Michele Bordewyk, Chief Deputy Kenneth Chleborad (Meade County), Child Advocate Joanna Lawler, attorney with Pennington County Public Defender and Claudia Baron for their assistance and input.
Anyone desiring to communicate with the Author, may do so by sending an e-mail to the author at rogermbaron@gmail.com .
Roger Baron is a guest columnist for the Rapid City Post. Opinions expressed may not necessarily represent the views of the Rapid City Post, its affiliates, or advertisers.
