Cited by

“These factors, which address the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the child, are intended to assess whether a juvenile presents a risk to public safety and thus aim to predict whether a juvenile is likely to offend in the future.”

showed “escalating criminal behavior that presents a threat to public safety,”

to predict whether a juvenile is likely to offend in the future.”

We review the district court’s EJJ determination for an abuse of discret ion, and its findings for clear error.

he ar gues that his delinquency history is not significant enough to weigh in favor of ce rtification.

“A district court’s decision to certify a juvenile for adult prosecution is entitled to considerable latitude.” (quotation omitted).

Because there is clear and convincing evidence that appellant’s prior history does not consist of “deeply ingrained, escalating criminal behavior,” this factor does not support certification and this finding by the district court was erroneous.

d 259, 262-63 (Minn. App. 2000) (commenting that prior record of delinquency does not support adult certification when it “fails to show deeply ingrained, escalating criminal behavior that presents a threat to public safety”).

further argues that both parties’ experts testified to a low risk of re-offense, which weighs against a finding that the offense was serious

“These factors, which address the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the child, are intended to assess whether a juvenile presents a risk to public safety and thus aim to predict whether a juvenile is likely to offend in the future.”