ALAMOSA — The transfer hearing held in the case of a then 15-year-old juvenile accused of shooting Alamosa Police Department Officer Mollee Heeney and Alamosa resident Ricardo Rangel in October of 2022 concluded Friday morning with closing arguments made by Cobea Becker, an attorney for the juvenile, and 12^th Judicial District Attorney Anne Kelly.

It is now up to District Judge Crista Newmyer-Olsen, who also presided in the preliminary hearing earlier this week, to decide the path of the case going forward.

Should the juvenile remain in the juvenile judicial system where, if convicted of the crimes he is accused of committing, he will be incarcerated with other individuals his same approximate age in a facility where the focus is on outcomes, including rehabilitation and treatment, for a maximum sentence of seven years until the likely age of 23?

Or, due to the nature of the charges in the case, should he be tried as an adult and convicted, he would be sentenced to one of the adult prisons in the Department of Corrections (DOC) where the primary stated goal is incarceration and, according to 2022 Colorado DOC figures, less than 1% (.4%) of inmates are 15-19 years old and 77% are between the ages of 20 and 49 for a sentence to be determined by the judge?

To guide in that decision by the judge, the Colorado Revised Statutes direct the court to consider 14 factors — such as the seriousness of the crime, if there’s a prior record, if the offense was committed in a premeditated or willful manner, and impact of the offense on the victim and — as the judge allowed in this case — the community.

Two other factors were also the focus of significant testimony. There was extensive evidence presented by the juvenile’s attorney related to — as described in the statute — his “maturity”, which included events that had occurred throughout his life and the impact those events had on his behavior, his thought processes and his view of the world.

Closely tied to that testimony was testimony addressing another factor of consideration — the likelihood of his rehabilitation by use of facilities available to the juvenile court.

Kelly focused the initial part of her arguments in the hearing on the impact of the offense on the law enforcement community, with multiple officers testifying to being shaken by hearing the call over the radio and rushing to the scene as quickly as possible, angered by what they learned at the scene and angered by the juvenile’s response afterward. Several commented that they had never heard a call like that before with one officer saying that he felt it had impacted officer morale and how officers with APD now approach calls involving juveniles.

When asked if they had received responses from the community, all indicated they had with responses ranging from expressing support for the officer injured in the shooting to anger that the incident happened.

Kelly introduced testimony from a Colorado Bureau of Investigation analyst who had reviewed the juvenile’s Facebook page and found images and messages that suggested the juvenile had engaged in drug activity and wanted to join a gang.

Kelly then introduced evidence related to two incidents involving the juvenile on Oct. 7, just a few weeks before the alleged shooting.

Counsel for the juvenile objected multiple times to the testimony being allowed, stating that Judge Newmyer-Olsen had presided in the preliminary hearings related to the incidents, the juvenile had not yet gone to trial, and the presumption of innocence was a basic right.

Judge Newmyer-Olsen overruled the objection, stating that the testimony related to three factors in consideration — the juvenile’s maturity, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and previous record.

According to testimony from a deputy with the Rio Grande County Sheriff’s Office, the juvenile and several friends had allegedly entered the residence of an acquaintance of the juvenile in the early morning hours of Oct. 7. The juvenile was holding a gun, which he fired outside the house and then, upon entering, into the ceiling of the house, after which he took some items from the home and left.

On the same night and in Alamosa, an officer with APD testified that the juvenile had allegedly entered a home with friends, looking for another person. It’s alleged that he pointed the gun at a woman who was sleeping with her three children and then went into a bedroom and pointed the weapon at another person sleeping in bed. No shots were fired in the second incident.

Becker brought to the court’s attention that, prior to Oct. 7, the juvenile had no record with law enforcement, and the warrantless arrests were issued only after the juvenile was detained for the Oct. 27 shooting.

Aside from an incident on the bus the day of the shooting, the remainder of Kelly’s efforts during the hearing were focused on refuting testimony presented by expert witnesses called to testify by the juvenile’s attorneys.

Becker called an expert witness with the Department of Youth Services (DYS) to the stand who described the security in a juvenile detention center, including the development of an intervention plan, the opportunity for individual therapy sessions, a staff that is trained to develop relationships that build trust and support and the need for the court to approve any transfer or release in a case like the juvenile’s prior to that change taking place.

Kelly asked the witness about the 58% recidivism rate of juveniles in DYS compared to the Department of Corrections which reportedly has a 19% recidivism rate. Those figures could not be confirmed prior to press time.

A second expert witness, qualified as an expert in Educational Law and the Criminal Justice System, had reviewed the juvenile’s records with Alamosa School District and cited notes indicating the juvenile had tested in the 1 percentile for reading — meaning 99 out of 100 students scored higher — and in the 5 percentile in reading. He had also been diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), for which he was receiving medication, plus emotional regulation disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Despite the diagnoses and significant indicators of poor academic performance, the witness stated the juvenile had received zero interventions or evaluations for any of the services that would include the intervention plans school districts are required to create and implement. Instead, he had been “suspended from school and then expelled.”

In her cross-examination, Kelly first focused on the expert’s qualifications, highlighting specific organizations he was associated with that suggested a bias and a lack of experience in education. She then noted incidents when the juvenile had discontinued counseling, adding that the juvenile had chosen to stop taking medication for ADHD when he was ten years of age, suggesting that he did not show an openness to rehabilitation.

Two additional expert witnesses were called to the stand, both of whom had conducted interviews with the juvenile and had reviewed records from his family history.

Those events included both parents, at different times, being incarcerated, resulting in his father being absent from the juvenile’s life at a young age for a period of time. His mother had developed a problem with substance abuse that had, on several occasions, required the juvenile to revive her with water when she appeared to be unconscious. The Department of Human Services had removed his sister from the home after she was stuck by a needle filled with heroin; however, DHS did not remove the juvenile.

He had witnessed numerous incidents of his mother being the victim of domestic violence and, while his father was in prison, had developed a close relationship with several partners who were also abusive. He then developed a close relationship with his stepfather, who died. The juvenile reported being close to his mother, who subsequently died of an overdose in the bathtub of their residence, one year before the shooting on Oct. 27.

According to one of the experts, he had been using alcohol and marijuana since the age of 10, the same age at which he tried to end his life by wrapping a dog leash around his neck. It was also added that he did not begin using “hard drugs” until after his mother’s death.

The takeaway, if it can be simplified as such, from the expert witnesses is that the trauma the juvenile had witnessed in his life had played a significant role in his behavior, most especially the domestic abuse, which causes a four times greater chance of a juvenile developing psychopathology. The witnessed abuse was also related to feelings of guilt for the inability to defend his mother and contributed to difficulty regulating his emotions, perceiving danger in the environment when there is no threat and an overall ability to succeed.

Both recommended placement at a secured, residential center where he could receive the rehabilitation and treatment he required. Although both were clear that no one could predict the outcome in any case, there were indications that he would benefit from the intervention.

Kelly largely focused on the lack of willingness to participate in rehabilitative services, as evidenced by other previous times when the juvenile had been either engaged in counseling and stopped going or had been offered and refused to engage.

The witnesses testified independently of each other that such a response was not surprising and that many factors could be involved, including the challenges of continuing to live in a community where he is triggered by a “fight or flight” response and the lack of treatment — that could be provided in a residential facility where he is surrounded by staff trained to interact with at risk youth who have traumatic pasts.

Closing arguments reflected much of what was discussed in the transfer hearing with varying emphasis. Perhaps Cobea Becker’s opening question provides the best summary of all when she asked, "Who is this juvenile?"

Judge Newmyer-Olsen has said she will issue an order in the case — to either transfer the case to adult court or leave it in the juvenile justice system — by Sept. 15.