State v. Johnson

413 Mont. 202

534 P.3d 676

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Austin Tyler JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.

DA 21-0618

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: June 21, 2023

Decided: August 31, 2023

For Appellant: Layla Turman, Kindred Legal, PLLC, Missoula, Montana

For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Bree Gee, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Scott Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney, Laura Watson, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana

Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Austin Johnson (Johnson) appeals the denial of his motion to transfer his case to Youth Court entered in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. We reverse.

¶2 We restate the issue on appeal as follows:

Whether the District Court erred by denying Johnson's request to transfer his charges to Youth Court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 In December 2019, the State charged Johnson with one count of Sexual Intercourse without Consent, one count of Sexual Abuse of Children, and one count of Sexual Assault, all felonies. Pursuant to § 41-5-206(3), MCA, the State filed the information in the District Court. The charges arose from Johnson's non-consensual sexual contact with an eleven-year-old nonverbal autistic girl, C.N, in August 2019. Johnson had C.N. undress, touched her, digitally penetrated her, and took video and photographs with his cellphone. Johnson had turned 17 years old one month before the incident, which occurred after C.N.’s mother left C.N alone with Johnson while she went to the store. When the mother returned, C.N. was upset, referenced her "pee-pee" and "pictures," and said she "sucked [Johnson's] pee-pee." C.N.’s mother confronted Johnson and found a video on his cellphone depicting him "instructing C.N. to spread herself while she was bent over," and touching her anus and genitals. During the ensuing investigation, images were recovered from Johnson's cellphone depicting Johnson touching C.N.’s breast and C.N. naked on the toilet. A video was also recovered depicting Johnson's hand on C.N.’s bare buttocks and a video of Johnson digitally penetrating C.N. ¶4 The District Court held a hearing in June 2020 pursuant to § 41-5-206, MCA, to determine if the case should be transferred to youth court. Johnson called Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Tara French (Officer French), Adult Probation Officer Paul Hawkins (Officer Hawkins), and licensed clinical social worker Michael Sullivan (Sullivan). Sullivan, who was qualified as an expert witness in the areas of forensic evaluations—including sexual offender and juvenile risk assessments—is a member of the Montana Sexual Offender Treatment Association and estimates he has performed roughly 800 psychosexual evaluations for courts. When conducting a psychosexual evaluation, Sullivan uses several tests which, together, comprehensively assess the "individual emotionally, behaviorally, psychologically[,] and sexually." Administered together, Sullivan testified they provide a "well rounded picture of the subject." Sullivan evaluated Johnson over two days and concluded Johnson "has a good understanding of appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior." Johnson "did not present with objective sexual interests to prepubescent children of either sex" and displayed a "non-deviant profile." Sullivan testified that Johnson "scored very low" on his risk of reoffending and opined, regarding the nature of the offense, that Johnson's and the community's needs could be "adequately addressed through the services provided though Youth Court supervision." While acknowledging that the details of the alleged offense "can appear rather egregious," Sullivan testified, "I don't believe there's really anything about the alleged conduct which would indicate that he's not appropriate for Youth Court supervision ...." Finally, Sullivan testified that it was clear the offense was an "impulsive act" and that the offense was committed in a very brief period of time. Sullivan testified Johnson struggles in relationships and does not perceive himself as having a high level of acceptance from females or socially in general. Sullivan testified that the offense was situational and not predatory, and that there was no indication of pedophilia or other deviant interests.

¶5 Juvenile Probation Officer French testified that she first met Johnson at his detention hearing and, at the time of the transfer hearing, had known him for ten months. Prior to the transfer hearing, Johnson had voluntarily enrolled in sexual offender treatment. French personally provided Johnson's pre-trial supervision and indicated that Johnson had no prior juvenile record. French indicated Johnson lives alone with his mother with whom he gets along well, and that he is the primary provider of food and transportation because of his mother's medical needs. Johnson worked in a nursing home and restaurant and brings in a large portion of the income for the family. French testified that while on release, Johnson has been "absolutely" compliant with all conditions and has always asked for permission before doing things like getting a haircut or going to a job interview. "[I]n the last ten months there hasn't been one question of where he's been ...." French testified she has a specialty caseload consisting of only ten juvenile sex offenders. Also, French explained that if Johnson had trouble paying for treatment, then Youth Court could pay to ensure he continues treatment. Johnson opined that a Youth Court transfer would best serve Johnson's interests while protecting the community.

¶6 Johnson also called Officer Hawkins from Adult Parole and Probation who testified that while there are specialty caseloads for sex offenders, the typical caseload is between 80 and 100 individuals. Moreover, adult probation would likely not pay for treatment, GPS monitoring, or a drug patch, and that offenders are encouraged to take care of their own responsibilities.

¶7 The State called Yellowstone County Attorney's Office victim witness coordinator Allison VanDyke (VanDyke) but did not otherwise present witness testimony. VanDyke testified to explain why C.N. and her family were not present at the hearing but did not comment on the appropriateness of a Youth Court transfer. A second hearing was held in August 2020 to receive additional information. There, the State conveyed C.N.’s mother's opposition to a Youth Court transfer and her belief that Johnson should receive an adult sentence. Other than presenting testimony that C.N.’s mother objected to a transfer, the State presented no evidence on the factors relevant to transferring a youth set forth in § 41-5-206, MCA.

¶8 The District Court found transferring the case to Youth Court would be in Johnson's best interests and would serve the interests of community protection. Regarding § 41-5-206(3)(c), MCA —whether "it would be in the best interests of the youth if the matter was prosecuted in youth court"—the court held:

Financial assistance with sexual offender treatment or monitoring devices (GPS) could be better facilitated by juvenile probation. If the Defendant was convicted, a youth court disposition could also be less severe than a sentence following an adult district court conviction. Finally, registration would be discretionary with a youth court disposition.

Regarding § 41-5-206(3)(a), MCA —whether "a youth court proceeding and disposition will serve the interests of community protection"—the court held:

The Court observes that Officer French who has a caseload of five [to] ten juvenile sex offenders would supervise the Defendant if the Court granted transfer. In contrast, if the Court denied transfer, an adult probation and parole officer with a caseload of around 60 offenders would supervise the Defendant. Community protection (as well as the Defendant's best interests) are served by having a supervising officer who can devote more time and attention to the Defendant due to having a much smaller caseload.

¶9 However, it concluded based on the Information and affidavit filed in support that under § 41-5-206(3)(b), MCA —the nature of the offense—the allegations were "serious and troubling" and that "strongly support[ed] denying Defendant's motion to transfer." Reasoning that § 41-5-206(3), MCA, was in the conjunctive and that Johnson had failed to meet his burden on subsection (b), the District Court denied Johnson's transfer motion. Johnson ultimately pleaded guilty to two amended counts of felony sexual assault. On each count, the District Court sentenced Johnson to twenty years with fifteen years suspended, to be run concurrently. The District Court also designated Johnson a Level I Sexual Offender.

¶10 Johnson timely appeals the denial of his Youth Court transfer request.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶11 We review a district court's decision as to whether a juvenile should be prosecuted in youth court or in district court for an abuse of discretion. State v. Whiteman , 2005 MT 15, ¶ 10, 325 Mont. 358, 106 P.3d 543. A court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. State v. Talksabout , 2017 MT 79, ¶ 8, 387 Mont. 166, 392 P.3d 574. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether its conclusions are correct. Whiteman , ¶ 10. We review for clear error the specific findings of fact on which the district court relied in making its transfer decision. Talksabout , ¶ 8. A finding is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, if the district court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if our review of the record convinces us that the district court made a mistake. Whiteman , ¶ 10. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party when determining whether a district court's findings are supported by substantial credible evidence. Talksabout , ¶ 8.

DISCUSSION

¶...