State v. Tyler P. , 299 Neb. 959 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    06/29/2018 08:11 AM CDT
    - 959 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    State   of  Nebraska, appellant,
    v.   Tyler P., appellee.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed May 11, 2018.      No. S-17-1250.
    1.	 Criminal Law: Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Appeal and
    Error. A motion to transfer a pending criminal proceeding to the juve-
    nile court is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
    2.	 Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Waiver. In deciding whether to grant
    the requested waiver and to transfer the proceedings to juvenile court,
    the court having jurisdiction over a pending criminal prosecution must
    carefully consider the juvenile’s request in the light of the criteria or
    factors set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-276 (Reissue 2016).
    3.	 Courts: Juvenile Courts: Evidence. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1816(3)
    (Supp. 2017), after considering the evidence and the criteria set forth in
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-276 (Reissue 2016), the court shall transfer the
    case to juvenile court unless a sound basis exists for retaining the case
    in county court or district court.
    4.	 Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Proof. In a motion to transfer
    to juvenile court, the burden of proving a sound basis for retaining juris-
    diction in county court or district court lies with the State.
    5.	 Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Evidence. There is no arith-
    metical computation or formula required in a county court’s or district
    court’s consideration of the statutory criteria or factors when deciding
    whether to grant a request to transfer to juvenile court.
    6.	 ____: ____: ____: ____. When a county court or district court is decid-
    ing whether to grant a motion to transfer to juvenile court, there are no
    weighted factors, that is, no prescribed method by which more or less
    weight is assigned to each factor specified by statute.
    7.	 ____: ____: ____: ____. When a county court or district court is decid-
    ing whether to grant a motion to transfer to juvenile court, its consider-
    ation is a balancing test by which public protection and societal security
    are weighed against the practical and nonproblematical rehabilitation of
    the juvenile.
    - 960 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    8.	 Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists if the
    reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriv-
    ing a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters
    submitted for disposition.
    9.	 Appeal and Error. Abuse of discretion is a highly deferential standard
    of review.
    10.	 Criminal Law: Appeal and Error. Harmless error jurisprudence rec-
    ognizes that not all trial errors, even those of constitutional magnitude,
    entitle a criminal defendant to the reversal of an adverse trial result.
    11.	 Appeal and Error. Only prejudicial error, that is, error which can-
    not be said to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires
    a reversal.
    12.	 ____. When determining whether an alleged error is so prejudicial as to
    justify reversal, courts generally consider whether the error, in light of
    the totality of the record, influenced the outcome of the case.
    Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: M arlon
    A. Polk, Judge. Affirmed.
    Donald W. Kleine, Douglas County Attorney, Amy G.
    Jacobsen, and Jameson D. Cantwell for appellant.
    James Martin Davis, of Davis Law Office, for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and Funke,
    JJ., and R iedmann, Judge, and M artinez, District Judge.
    Funke, J.
    Tyler P. was 17 years old when he was charged in the
    Douglas County District Court with multiple felonies arising
    from a disturbance at his family’s home. He filed a motion to
    transfer the case to juvenile court, which was sustained. The
    State appeals, assigning error to the grant of the motion to
    transfer. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Facts
    The State filed an information in the district court for
    Douglas County charging Tyler with five felonies: two charges
    of attempted second degree murder, a Class II felony; two
    - 961 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    charges of use of a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a
    felony, a Class IC felony; and one charge of second degree
    assault, a Class IIA felony.
    Tyler filed a motion to transfer the matter to juvenile court
    under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-1816 (Supp. 2017) and 43-261
    (Reissue 2016). Tyler requested the district court waive juris-
    diction of the matter to the separate juvenile court for fur-
    ther proceedings under chapter 43, article 2, of the Nebraska
    Revised Statutes.
    A juvenile transfer hearing was held by the district court at
    which several witnesses testified and the State offered police
    reports concerning the incident of September 3, 2017. Gail P.,
    Tyler’s mother, testified about the events surrounding the inci-
    dent; Dr. Terry Davis testified about Tyler’s mental condition;
    and Heather Briggs, a juvenile probation officer, testified about
    the services available to Tyler in juvenile court.
    Gail testified that Tyler was born in February 2000 and that
    she and Dennis P. are Tyler’s parents. She also testified that
    Tyler resided with Dennis and Gail in their home in Waterloo,
    Nebraska; that he was active in high school sports, including
    being a standout football player; that he had minimal disci-
    plinary problems at home or at school; and that he had never
    been in juvenile court.
    She further testified that on the evening of September 2,
    2017, Tyler had a group of friends at the house to watch a
    football game. In the early morning hours of September 3,
    Gail noticed activity outside the house so she and Dennis
    went to investigate. In doing so, they discovered that the inte-
    rior of a barn on their property had significant damage and
    they found beer cans present. As a result, Dennis and Gail
    confronted Tyler about consuming alcohol and breaking the
    rules. In doing so, they noticed that Tyler was unsteady on his
    feet and lisping and, at one point, he sat down on the ground
    and stared blankly at them. They demanded that Tyler give
    them his car keys and cell phone in an effort to punish him
    for his behavior. At that time, Tyler became confrontational
    - 962 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    and began to verbally and physically abuse Dennis and Gail
    and block their entrance into the house. Tyler then ran to a
    shed and returned with a baseball bat. Dennis called the 911
    emergency dispatch service for assistance, which caused Tyler
    to chase Dennis and threaten him with the bat. Eventually
    Dennis and Gail were able to gain access to the house and
    lock the door. Tyler struck the door of the house with the bat
    several times and then gained access to the house through
    another door.
    Gail was again confronted by Tyler in the family room of the
    home. At that time, she noticed that “his eyes were black” and
    he was laughing in a “creepy” manner. Tyler then ran toward
    the family’s gun safe. Dennis lunged at Tyler and grabbed his
    legs in an effort to stop him from reaching the guns. Tyler
    broke free of Dennis and began stomping on his head and
    kicking him in the back. Tyler picked up an oversized ottoman
    in an effort to smash Dennis with it. Gail then began to kick
    Tyler in an effort to distract him from hurting Dennis further.
    Tyler then punched Gail in the head and struck her in the legs
    with the bat. After striking Gail, Tyler fled the house. While
    outside, Gail could hear Tyler laughing, yelling, and smash-
    ing things around the property. Gail testified that it was a very
    foggy night, so she could not see him at the time. Dennis and
    Gail exited the home and were standing on a patio when Tyler
    emerged from the fog. He appeared “eerily calm” and was say-
    ing that it was too late for him, that he was not good at foot-
    ball, and that he did not deserve to live. Tyler then went into
    the house and retrieved a shotgun.
    Law enforcement arrived, and Tyler fled on foot. Deputies
    attempted to locate Tyler on the property, but due to the intense
    fog, they were not able to see him. Tyler then approached Gail
    and pointed the gun directly at her. Gail pleaded for Tyler not
    to shoot her and to put down the gun. Tyler then ran off again.
    Gail then heard gunfire and saw that Tyler had been shot.
    Gail also testified that though she did not see Tyler shoot at
    the officers, she knew that he had been accused of doing so.
    - 963 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    While in the hospital, Gail told Tyler that he had shot one of
    the officers.
    Davis, a board-certified psychiatrist who is also certified in
    forensic psychiatry and addiction psychiatry, testified on behalf
    of Tyler. Davis testified that while playing a football game on
    September 1, 2017, Tyler had sustained four head-to-head sig-
    nificant impacts which most likely caused a concussion. Davis
    stated that Tyler had no memory of the events occurring on
    September 3 and that it was his diagnosis that Tyler suffered
    from neurocognitive disorder due to a traumatic brain injury.
    Davis based his diagnosis on the evaluation he completed of
    Tyler, evaluations completed by Tyler’s pediatrician and a
    neuropsychologist after the shooting, and an interview of Gail
    in which she detailed Tyler’s behavioral changes on the day of
    the incident. Davis noted that symptoms exhibited by Tyler,
    including such things as a personality change, the flatness of
    his affect and emotional display, his aggressive behavior, his
    change of smell and taste, and his hypersensitivity to sound
    and light are fairly classic signs of a traumatic brain injury.
    Davis testified that though Tyler had a blood alcohol content of
    .148, his behavior was not the result of alcoholic intoxication
    or an alcoholic blackout.
    Davis opined that
    Tyler was in an amnestic episode and did not fully under-
    stand or appreciate what he was doing or that it was
    wrong, since he has no memory of it now. Was he able
    to intentionally carry out specific motor actions? Yes. He
    was able to get a baseball bat. He was able to chase after
    his mother. He was able to go to the gun cabinet and get
    a gun. He was able to load the gun, I assume, and fire it.
    But in terms of his intent to harm anyone or his apprecia-
    tion of what his actions were at that time, those would
    have been substantially impaired.
    Davis further opined that Tyler’s prognosis was good. Davis
    stated that Tyler “should pretty much recover” within 3 months
    from the type of brain injury he sustained. Though there may
    - 964 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    be some lingering effects, Davis believed those could be
    addressed through rehabilitation treatment through an outpa-
    tient brain injury clinic. He also testified that the events of
    September 3, 2017, appeared to be an isolated incident, that it
    was unlikely Tyler would commit a violent act in the future,
    and that incarcerating Tyler was not necessary for the safety of
    the public.
    Briggs testified that she has been a juvenile probation offi-
    cer for 13 years. Briggs stated that juvenile probation could
    offer services, including inhome services, family support,
    tracker, electronic monitoring, and assistance with arranging
    outpatient treatment for mental health or substance abuse.
    She further testified that due to Tyler’s turning 18 in February
    2018, some services would be limited, including out-of-home
    placement. In addition, Briggs testified that Tyler would be
    subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court only until he
    reached the age of 19.
    District Court’s Findings
    At the completion of the juvenile transfer hearing, the dis-
    trict court ruled from the bench and later entered a written
    order. The written order indicated that evidence was adduced
    and that after having considered the criteria set forth in Neb.
    Rev. Stat. § 43-276 (Reissue 2016), and for the reasons stated
    in open court, Tyler’s motion to transfer the case to the sepa-
    rate juvenile court of Douglas County was sustained.
    The court’s full oral pronouncement from the bench is pro-
    vided as follows:
    It goes without saying, but the Court will say it anyway,
    that this was a very serious and life-threatening event to
    all those involved, and based upon the fact that [Tyler]
    does not have a memory as to the events, it is — I
    guess, in that sense, it arguably deprives the Court of
    being able to analyze what the motivation for the events
    would be or motivation for why he did what he did on
    that night.
    - 965 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    At the same time, there is evidence, I guess, adduced
    from the expert, Dr. Davis, of this, in his diagnosis, of
    the neurocognitive disorder, which resulted from the trau-
    matic brain injury, and that does at least coincide with
    the fact that a football game was played, that [Tyler]
    was involved in the day before, as well as another game,
    I guess, arguably, the week before. And when you’re
    weighing all that with the factors in [§] 43-276 and hav-
    ing to balance those with the fact that he’s never been
    through the Juvenile System, then you’re trying to bal-
    ance those with the safety of the public. And that is fur-
    ther balanced by, I guess, the fact that he has been out
    on bond for some time, and you could argue that there
    has at least been some time where he may have been
    able to access the public and whether this was just a one-
    time event.
    And I guess from the Court’s perspective, I would not
    see if he were to be transferred to the Juvenile Court,
    that that would be considered a free pass. I guess the
    Court would defer to the — if, in fact, he were in the
    Juvenile Court, to their expertise, and clearly there was
    something going on that needs to be evaluated and further
    evaluated, as it relates to [Tyler] and his mental/emotional
    state absolutely needs to be further evaluated and maybe
    even treated.
    And the Court doesn’t lose sight of the obvious that —
    of weighing the best interests of [Tyler], that the Court
    believes that he should be transferred to the Juvenile
    Court, and that is what the Court is going to do.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    The State assigns, reordered and restated, that the district
    court abused its discretion in transferring Tyler to juvenile
    court, because (1) a sound basis existed for retaining the
    matter in district court, (2) the court did not sufficiently
    make the required findings pursuant to § 43-276, and (3) the
    court decided the motion to transfer without first reading and
    - 966 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    considering the police reports related to the investigation of the
    crimes charged.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] A motion to transfer a pending criminal proceeding to
    the juvenile court is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.1
    ANALYSIS
    Legal Framework
    Under § 29-1816(3)(a) for motions to transfer a case from
    the county court or district court to juvenile court:
    The county court or district court shall schedule a hear-
    ing on such motion within fifteen days. . . . The criteria
    set forth in section 43-276 shall be considered at such
    hearing. After considering all the evidence and reasons
    presented by both parties, the case shall be transferred
    to juvenile court unless a sound basis exists for retaining
    the case in county court or district court[.]
    The considerations in determining whether to transfer a case
    are set out in § 43-276(1):
    The county attorney or city attorney, in making the deter-
    mination whether to file a criminal charge, file a juvenile
    court petition, offer juvenile pretrial diversion or media-
    tion, or transfer a case to or from juvenile court, and the
    juvenile court, county court, or district court in making
    the determination whether to transfer a case, shall con-
    sider: (a) The type of treatment such juvenile would most
    likely be amenable to; (b) whether there is evidence that
    the alleged offense included violence; (c) the motivation
    for the commission of the offense; (d) the age of the
    juvenile and the ages and circumstances of any others
    involved in the offense; (e) the previous history of the
    juvenile, including whether he or she had been convicted
    of any previous offenses or adjudicated in juvenile court;
    1
    See State v. Hunt, ante p. 573, 
    909 N.W.2d 363
    (2018); State v. Dimmitt, 
    5 Neb. Ct. App. 451
    , 
    560 N.W.2d 498
    (1997).
    - 967 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    (f) the best interests of the juvenile; (g) consideration of
    public safety; (h) consideration of the juvenile’s ability to
    appreciate the nature and seriousness of his or her con-
    duct; (i) whether the best interests of the juvenile and the
    security of the public may require that the juvenile con-
    tinue in secure detention or under supervision for a period
    extending beyond his or her minority and, if so, the avail-
    able alternatives best suited to this purpose; (j) whether
    the victim agrees to participate in mediation; (k) whether
    there is a juvenile pretrial diversion program established
    pursuant to sections 43-260.02 to 43-260.07; (l) whether
    the juvenile has been convicted of or has acknowledged
    unauthorized use or possession of a firearm; (m) whether
    a juvenile court order has been issued for the juvenile
    pursuant to section 43-2,106.03; (n) whether the juvenile
    is a criminal street gang member; and (o) such other mat-
    ters as the parties deem relevant to aid in the decision.
    District Court Did Not A buse
    Discretion Transferring
    to Juvenile Court
    The State contends that a sound basis existed for retain-
    ing the matter in district court. More specifically, the State
    argues that the extreme level of violence, the obvious public
    safety concerns, the motivation of the offense, and Tyler’s age
    at the time of the offense all support retaining the matter in
    adult court.
    [2-4] This court has stated that in deciding whether to grant
    the requested waiver and to transfer the proceedings to juvenile
    court, the court having jurisdiction over a pending criminal
    prosecution must carefully consider the juvenile’s request in
    the light of the criteria or factors set forth in § 43-276.2 After
    the court considers the evidence in light of the § 43-276 fac-
    tors, “‘the case shall be transferred to juvenile court unless
    a sound basis exists for retaining the case in county court or
    2
    State v. Thieszen, 
    232 Neb. 952
    , 
    442 N.W.2d 887
    (1989).
    - 968 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    district court.’”3 Thus, transfer in the absence of a sound basis
    for retention is the general rule.4 The burden of proving a
    sound basis for retention lies with the State.5
    [5-7] There is no arithmetical computation or formula required
    in a court’s consideration of the statutory criteria or factors.6
    Also, there are no weighted factors, that is, no prescribed
    method by which more or less weight is assigned to each factor
    specified in the statute.7 It is a balancing test by which public
    protection and societal security are weighed against the practi-
    cal and nonproblematical rehabilitation of the juvenile.8
    In the instant matter, based on the evidence considered by the
    district court, the district court found that there was not a sound
    basis for the adult court to retain jurisdiction of the defendant’s
    case. These findings may be summarized as follows:
    • The case involved a “very serious and life-threatening event
    to all those involved.”
    • The court could not determine Tyler’s motives due to his lack
    of memory as to the events.
    • Davis’ diagnosis provided evidence that Tyler had a neuro-
    cognitive disorder, which resulted from a previous traumatic
    brain injury.
    • Tyler had never been involved with the juvenile system.
    • Tyler had been out on bond for some time, and there was no
    evidence of additional violence.
    • The incident seemed to be a one-time event.
    • Were Tyler in juvenile court, he would be subject to further
    evaluations for his mental/emotional state.
    • Treatment for Tyler’s mental state may be necessary.
    3
    Hunt, supra note 1, ante at 
    582, 909 N.W.2d at 371
    .
    4
    State v. Doyle, 
    237 Neb. 60
    , 
    464 N.W.2d 779
    (1991).
    5
    Hunt, supra note 1.
    6
    See State v. Alexander, 
    215 Neb. 478
    , 
    339 N.W.2d 297
    (1983).
    7
    Id.
    8
    See State v. Dominguez, 
    290 Neb. 477
    , 
    860 N.W.2d 732
    (2015).
    - 969 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    Although the record shows that this matter involved very
    serious crimes and that due to Tyler’s age, he will be under
    the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for less than 1 year, the
    record also supports the district court’s findings. The evidence
    indicates that Tyler continues to reside at home with Dennis
    and Gail, that he had not been violent in the past, that he had
    no prior criminal record, that his crimes were attributable to a
    previously suffered brain trauma, that treatment and the pas-
    sage of time would most likely resolve his brain trauma, and
    that he had not been violent since the event.
    [8,9] Applying the balancing test in the light of the sev-
    eral criteria or factors found in § 43-276(1), we find that
    the district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring
    Tyler’s case to the separate juvenile court. A judicial abuse of
    discretion exists if the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are
    clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial
    right and denying just results in matters submitted for dispo-
    sition.9 Abuse of discretion is a highly deferential standard
    of review.10
    Our review indicates the district court applied the general
    rule set forth by the Legislature under § 29-1816(3)(a) that the
    case “shall be transferred to juvenile court unless a sound basis
    exists for retaining the case” and that, when weighed against
    the evidence Tyler presented at the hearing, the State failed to
    meet its burden to show a sound basis for retention. The State’s
    first assignment of error is therefore without merit.
    District Court M ade
    Sufficient Findings
    The State contends that the court failed to set forth suf-
    ficient findings to warrant a transfer to juvenile court. Under
    § 29-1816(3)(b), the district court is required to set forth find-
    ings for the reason for its decision.
    9
    Rodriguez v. Surgical Assocs. P.C., 
    298 Neb. 573
    , 
    905 N.W.2d 247
    (2018).
    10
    See Osantowski v. Osantowski, 
    298 Neb. 339
    , 
    904 N.W.2d 251
    (2017).
    - 970 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    In State v. Phinney,11 we held that when a juvenile requests
    that the case be transferred to juvenile court, it is mandatory
    for a trial court to set forth on the record its findings support-
    ing its determination that there is a sound basis for refusing
    to transfer the juvenile’s case. We noted that in Kent v. United
    States,12 the U.S. Supreme Court, in reviewing a District of
    Columbia statute which permitted juvenile courts to waive
    jurisdiction over minors to adult criminal courts, stated that
    the juvenile court must accompany its waiver order with the
    statement of reasons or considerations therefor and that such a
    statement “must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient
    specificity to permit meaningful review.” We also noted in
    State v. Torres13 that a trial court must make a statement of its
    findings which provides sufficient specificity to permit mean-
    ingful review by this court.
    In State v. Stewart,14 we addressed the issue of the findings
    that must accompany a trial court’s decision on a motion to
    transfer to juvenile court. In Stewart, the trial court made a
    separate statement of its findings for retaining jurisdiction of
    the case, specifically mentioning five of the factors set forth in
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-202.01 (Reissue 1978) (the predecessor
    of § 43-276). We found that while it would have been prefer-
    able for the trial court to refer to all the considerations set
    forth in § 43-202.01, in its order, the statute in question did
    not require the court to do so.
    However, in State v. Doyle,15 we remanded a motion to
    transfer to juvenile court back to the trial court to make spe-
    cific findings as provided by statute. Neither the oral findings
    11
    State v. Phinney, 
    235 Neb. 486
    , 
    455 N.W.2d 795
    (1990).
    12
    Kent v. United States, 
    383 U.S. 541
    , 561, 
    86 S. Ct. 1045
    , 
    16 L. Ed. 2d 84
          (1966).
    13
    See State v. Trevino, 
    230 Neb. 494
    , 
    432 N.W.2d 503
    (1988).
    14
    State v. Stewart, 
    197 Neb. 497
    , 
    250 N.W.2d 849
    (1977), overruled on
    other grounds, State v. Palmer, 
    224 Neb. 282
    , 
    399 N.W.2d 706
    (1986).
    15
    Doyle, supra note 4.
    - 971 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    of the court nor the court’s written order detailed the findings
    made in support of the order of denying the transfer.
    In the instant matter, the district court’s order merely sets
    forth that after considering all the factors of § 43-276, and
    for the reasons stated in open court, Tyler’s motion to trans-
    fer was sustained. Without more, the order would not permit
    meaningful review by this court. However, in its oral findings,
    the court stated that it weighed the factors in § 43-276(1)
    and balanced those with the safety of the public. In doing so,
    the court found that the case should be transferred to juve-
    nile court. The court specifically referenced relevant statu-
    tory factors, including the motivation behind the offense, the
    juvenile’s previous criminal history, the juvenile’s ability to
    appreciate his conduct, the best interests of the juvenile, and
    the safety of the public. And, as we have previously stated,
    though it would have been preferable for the district court to
    refer to all the statutory considerations, the statute does not
    require it to do so. As a result, this assignment of error is
    without merit.
    H armless Error Not to
    Consider A ll Evidence
    The State contends that the district court failed to consider
    all of the evidence submitted by the parties prior to pronounc-
    ing its ruling. More specifically, the State argues that the court
    did not review the investigative reports concerning the events
    on September 3, 2017.
    Section 29-1816(3)(a) requires that only after the trial court
    “consider[s] all the evidence and reasons presented by both
    parties” may a case be transferred to juvenile court. (Emphasis
    supplied.)
    The record is clear that approximately 141 pages of police
    reports were offered into evidence by the State at the close
    of the juvenile transfer hearing. After receiving the police
    reports, the court immediately heard closing arguments from
    counsel. Upon completion of the closing arguments, the court
    - 972 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    proceeded to render its findings and decision. Though the State
    asked the court to delay its ruling until it had considered all
    of the evidence, the court chose not to do so. As a result, the
    district court erred by failing to review and consider the police
    reports offered by the State.
    [10-12] However, the determination that the district court
    erred does not end our consideration of this assignment of
    error. Our harmless error jurisprudence recognizes that not all
    trial errors, even those of constitutional magnitude, entitle a
    criminal defendant to the reversal of an adverse trial result.16 It
    is only prejudicial error, that is, error which cannot be said to
    be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires a rever-
    sal.17 When determining whether an alleged error is so preju-
    dicial as to justify reversal, courts generally consider whether
    the error, in light of the totality of the record, influenced the
    outcome of the case.18
    The evidence the district court failed to review involved the
    law enforcement investigation of the events on September 3,
    2017. Within those reports is evidence that Tyler had consumed
    alcohol that night, that he verbally and physically assaulted
    Dennis and Gail, that he destroyed property with a baseball
    bat, that he physically assaulted Dennis and Gail, that he fired
    a shotgun at two law enforcement officers, that one of the
    officers received a gunshot wound to his arm, that the officers
    returned fire at Tyler, and that one of the officers shot Tyler
    in the abdomen. Though the police reports provided detailed
    information, the facts set forth in the reports are similar in
    nature to the allegations of the information filed by the State
    and the facts recounted by Gail and Davis. As noted, the dis-
    trict court began its oral findings by stating that “this was a
    very serious and life-threatening event to all those involved.”
    16
    State v. Kidder, ante p. 232, 
    908 N.W.2d 1
    (2018).
    17
    See 
    id. 18 Id.
                                  - 973 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. TYLER P.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 959
    As a result, the error of not reviewing the police reports, in
    light of the totality of the record, did not influence the outcome
    of the case.
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the deci-
    sion of the district court to transfer this matter to the juve-
    nile court.
    A ffirmed.