In re D.M., 2026 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4700 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
The California 6th District Court of Appeal reversed a transfer order, clarifying that the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a youth is not amenable to rehabilitation under the jurisdiction of juvenile court in order to transfer a youth to adult court.
The court stated in relevant part:
“The ultimate question for the juvenile court in a transfer petition is whether a minor is amenable to rehabilitation before the juvenile court’s jurisdiction expires. [Citations.] To order a minor’s transfer to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the juvenile court must ‘find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.’ ” (In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212 (J.S.), citing 707, subd. (a)(3) & E.P., supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at p. 416; see also Cal. Rules of Court, 22 rule 5.770(a), (b).) . . . . “[C]ognitive science has proven that children and youth who commit crimes are very capable of change.” ‘ [Citation.] ‘Rehabilitation is the way forward, and that includes giving juveniles who have made a mistake the opportunity to create a new future as they prepare to reenter our society as adults.’ [Citation.] Thus, a minor’s amenability to rehabilitation is the central and ‘dispositive’ question in proceedings under section 707 [citation], and the juvenile court’s analysis of the section 707 criteria must be ‘focused through the lens of amenability to rehabilitation.’ ” (In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 161-162 (O.F.); see also In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1288, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re J.M. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 745, 751-753.)
. . . .
Under section 707, subdivision (a)(1), it is the district attorney who brings the motion to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. It is the district attorney, therefore, who bears the burden of proving to the juvenile court “by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” ( 707, subd. (a)(3).) Under the statutory scheme, the default presumption is that the juvenile should remain in juvenile court and is amenable to rehabilitation there. . . . Given that the juvenile court improperly applied the burden of proof in deciding that D.M. is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the court’s jurisdiction, we agree with D.M. that the court’s order granting the transfer motion must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new transfer hearing.
