State v. Connard, 40 N.C. App. 765 (1979)

April 17, 1979 · North Carolina Court of Appeals · No. 7827DC1161

40 N.C. App. 765

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VINCENT CARROLL CONNARD

No. 7827DC1161

(Filed 17 April 1979)

Courts § 15; Infants § 11— infant defendant — case bound over to superior court-reasons must be stated

While a judge does not have to find facts to support his conclusion that a case involving a child over fourteen years of age should be tried in superior court, G.S. 7A-280 does require that he specify his reasons for the transfer.

APPEAL by defendant from Bulwinkle, Judge. Judgment entered 7 September 1978 in District Court, GASTON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 March 1979.

The respondent, who is a juvenile over fourteen years of age, was charged with a felonious breaking or entering and felonious larceny. At the preliminary hearing, the court found probable cause and ordered the respondent bound over for trial as an adult. The court made no finding that the needs of the child or the best interest of the State would be served by trying the defendant as an adult.

Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Sarah C. Young, for the State.

Assistant Public Defender Larry B. Langson, for defendant appellant.

WEBB, Judge.

G.S. 7A-280 provides in part:

If a child who has reached his fourteenth birthday is alleged to have committed an offense which constitutes a felony, the judge shall conduct a preliminary hearing to determine probable cause after notice to the parties as provided by this article ....

If the judge finds probable cause, he may proceed to hear the case under the procedures established by this article, or if the judge finds that the needs of the child or the best interest of the State will be served, the judge may transfer the case to the superior court division for trial as in the case of adults .... [T)he order of transfer shall specify the reasons for transfer. (Emphasis added.)

We have previously said that while the judge does not have to find facts to support the conclusion that the case should be tried in superior court, the statute requires that he specify his reasons for the transfer. See In re Bunn, 34 N.C. App. 614, 239 S.E. 2d 483 (1977) and In re Smith, 24 N.C. App. 321, 210 S.E. 2d 453 (1974). The judge failed to state a reason for transfer in this case.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges Martin (Robert M.) and MITCHELL concur.