State v. Verhagen

David Verhagen (plaintiff) was a juvenile who committed a brutal attack on a youth counselor in the secure correctional facility where Verhagen was being detained as a juvenile offender. The state (defendant) charged Verhagen with battery. In Wisconsin, the adult criminal court system had exclusive original jurisdiction over a juvenile who committed such a battery while being detained in a secure facility. However, Wisconsin law, § 970.032(2), provided that if the adult court found probable cause at a preliminary hearing that the juvenile committed the relevant offense, the adult court was required to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction or to transfer jurisdiction to the juvenile court. Section 970.032(2) required the adult court to exercise jurisdiction unless specified criteria were met. However, this statute did not indicate whether the state or the juvenile had the burden of proof to show whether transfer to the juvenile court was warranted. In a reverse-waiver proceeding, the adult court denied Verhagen’s constitutional and statutory challenge to § 970.032(2) on equal-protection grounds. In a subsequent preliminary hearing and reverse-waiver hearing, after determining probable cause, the adult court allocated the burden of proof to both parties. Having considered the criteria in § 970.032(2), at the end of the hearing, the court retained jurisdiction because Verhagen had not carried his burden. Verhagen sought leave to appeal both rulings. The appellate court noted that other rulings had already determined that Verhagen’s equal-protection claim was meritless. However, the appellate court considered the issue regarding the burden of proof because § 970.032(2)’s silence on the issue rendered the statute ambiguous, and the appellate court reviewed the lower court’s decision to retain jurisdiction. Both parties objected to the lower court’s shared-allocation approach, and each party argued that the other party had the burden of proof relating to a reverse waiver.