306 Ark. 273, 813 S.W.2d 256 (1991)
The State charged Jack Banks in the Circuit Court with four offenses stemming from a single episode: aggravated robbery, attempted capital murder, theft of property valued at less than $200, and fleeing from arrest.1 Banks was fourteen years old at the time the alleged offenses occurred and fifteen years old when the transfer hearing took place.2 His co-participant Andrew Harris was sixteen years old.3
Larry Ball and Eric Coffman were using the pay telephone at a shopping center parking area when they saw two young black men standing outside a car.4 Banks and Harris approached them after some conversation. Harris pushed Coffman and ripped a gold chain from Coffman's neck and struck him in the mouth with his fist.5 Banks and Harris ran back to their car where Banks pulled a shotgun from the car and brandished it toward Ball and Coffman.6
Ball and Coffman drove their car to another parking lot where they found Officer King and reported what had happened.7 King turned on his blue lights and approached the car being driven by Banks.8 Banks and Harris sped away and King gave chase during which Harris repeatedly fired a shotgun at King's police vehicle.9 The chase ended when Banks lost control and King's vehicle collided with the car being driven by Banks, after which Banks and Harris were caught by other officers who had arrived at the scene.10
Banks moved to transfer all the charges to the Juvenile Court.11 At the hearing on the motion the prosecutor stated the facts to be proved by the State.12 The Circuit Court retained jurisdiction of all of the offenses charged but stated that verdict forms would not be given to the jury on the fleeing and theft charges. The Court reserved decision as to whether a verdict form would be submitted to the jury with respect to the attempted capital murder charge.13 Defense counsel had assembled witnesses to testify about Banks being an immature first offender who accompanied an older person of low mental ability. The court refused to hear the testimony and instead considered the prosecutor's discretion to bring the charges in Circuit Court.14 The matter came before the Supreme Court of Arkansas on Banks's appeal from the Circuit Court's decision.
Whether it was proper for the Circuit Court to retain jurisdiction of any charge not listed in the statute authorizing adult prosecution of juveniles?15
Reading §§ 9-27-306 and 9-27-318(b)(1) together, the Juvenile Court has exclusive jurisdiction of all of the offenses charged against a juvenile with the exception of those listed in § 9-27-318(b)(1). Thus, the only offense charged against Banks of which the Circuit Court could properly retain jurisdiction was aggravated robbery.16
No. The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the attempted capital murder, theft of property valued at less than $200, and fleeing from arrest charges because those offenses are not listed in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(b)(1).17 The established facts show that the State charged Jack Banks with four offenses arising from a single episode, but only aggravated robbery qualifies for circuit court prosecution of a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old juvenile under the statute.
The court must therefore dismiss the non-listed charges for lack of jurisdiction regardless of their factual connection to the listed offense.
The charges of attempted capital murder, theft of property, and fleeing from arrest must be dismissed.18
Whether the offenses should all have been transferred to the Juvenile Court?19
In making the decision to retain jurisdiction or to transfer the case, the court shall consider the factors listed in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(e): the seriousness of the offense and whether violence was employed, whether the offense is part of a repetitive pattern of adjudicated offenses, and the prior history, character traits, mental maturity, and other factors reflecting prospects for rehabilitation.20 Upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile should be tried as an adult, the court shall enter an order to that effect.21
No. Although the non-listed charges must be dismissed, the aggravated robbery charge cannot remain in circuit court without a proper hearing on the transfer motion. The established facts indicate that defense counsel assembled witnesses to testify that Banks was an immature first offender who accompanied an older person of low mental ability. The Circuit Court refused to hear that testimony and instead based its ruling on the prosecutor's discretion to charge in circuit court.22 The court must apply the statutory criteria after hearing the evidence rather than deferring to prosecutorial choice.23
The case is remanded for a second hearing on whether the aggravated robbery charge should be transferred to the Juvenile Court.24